PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


Shelf 


Forrester,  Henry. 

'-S  ^^na   the 
^-Lc  episcopate 


CHRISTIAN    UNITY 

AND  THE 

HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


CHRISTIAN   UNITY 


Historic  Episcopate 


BY 

HENRY  FORRESTER, 

A  PRESBYTER   OF  THE    AMERICAN    CHURCH, 


THOMAS  WHITTAKER, 

2  AND  3  Bible  House. 

1889. 


Copyright,  1889, 
BY  HENRY  FORRESTER. 


TO  ALL  WHO  LOVE 

fffie  aortt  JcBus  ffiftrist  anlr  "mis  ffifjurcf), 

AND  ESPECIALLY  TO  THOSE  WHO 

ARE  SEEKING  THE  UNION, 

IN  HIS  VISIBLE  BODY, 

OF  ALL  WHO  BELIEVE  IN  HIM, 

Sfjis  asoofe  is  Affection atels  Belricateit. 


PREFACE. 


TT  IS  with  great  diffidence,  yet  with  much  confidence,  that 
-^  the  following  pages  are  offered  to  the  consideration  of  the 
American  Church,  and  the  Christian  public  generally — diffidence, 
on  account  of  their  divergence  from  the  prevailing  views;  confi- 
dence, because  of  the  seemingly  strong  foundation  upon  which 
that  divergence  is  based.  If  the  prevailing  theories  are  correct, 
this  discussion  of  them  will  only  fix  them  more  firmly  in  the 
mind  of  the  Church.  If  these  theories  are  erroneous,  it  is  time 
they  should  be  replaced  by  something  better.  In  any  case, 
therefore,  this  essay  may  be  of  service  to  the  cause  of  truth,  and 
the  heartiest  desire  of  the  writer  will  then  have  been  accom- 
plished. 

In  the  preparation  of  this  work,  the  author  has  endeavoured 
to  keep  in  mind  the  unlearned  as  well  as  the  learned;  hence 
some  things  which  to  the  latter  may  seem  superfluous.  It  is 
hoped  that  Christian  people  who  are  not  familiar  with  ecclesias- 
tical terms  or  the  history  of  the  Church  and  her  Councils,  will 
find  no  difficulty  in  understanding  any  part  of  what  is  herein 
written.  The  effort  has  been  conscientiously  made  to  present  a 
clear,  straightforward  statement  of  the  subject. 

The  scholar  will  at  once  see  under  what  disadvantages  this 
work  has  been  done.  He  will  miss  the  names  of  authors  to 
whose  works  he  would  expect  reference  to  be  made,  and  will 
observe  that  the  writer  has  had  access  to  but  few  books.  In 
fact,  dependence  has  been  placed,  principally,  upon  Bingham, 
Hefele,  Fulton,  and  the  American  edition  of  the  Ante-Nicene 
Christian  Library.  There  is  some  compensation  in  this,  how- 
ever, as  these  are  works  easily  accessible,  and  they  are  really 


sufficient  for  the  purpose  in  view.  In  some  crucial  points  it  may 
be  necessary  to  consult  works  in  their  original  languages,  but, 
ordinarily,  good  translations  are  preferable.  It  is  seldom  that 
the  average  scholar  can  venture  to  differ  with  the  men  by  whom 
such  translations  are  made. 

Finally,  let  it  be  said  that  the  author  of  this  little  book  is 
not  wedded  to  any  theories  propounded  in  it.  He  has  endeav- 
oured to  find  some  relief  for  himself  and  to  help  others  to  the 
same,  in  view  of  the  serious  aspect  of  the  times,  and  the  promis- 
ing movement  toward  Christian  unity.  If  any  one  will  offer 
some  better  thing  than  is  suggested  here,  the  author  will  be 
among  the  first  to  accept  it.  If  this  is  the  best  that  can  be 
offered,  may  others  recognise  the  fact  and  receive  it  heartily. 
Whatever  may  be  the  case,  the  author  humbly  offers  this  work 
to  the  All-gracious  Father,  praying  that  it  may  be  blessed  to 
His  glory  in  the  good  of  men. 

July  17,  1889. 


CHRISTIAN  UNITY  AND  THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


I. 
THE  DRIFT  TOWARD   UNITY. 

THAT  there  has  been  for  a  number  of  years  past  a 
notable  drift  toward  Christian  unity  is  evidenced 
by  the  Evangelical  Alliance,  the  Lambeth  and  Bonn 
Conferences,  the  Pan-Presbyterian  and  other  similar 
gatherings,  and  numerous  individual  utterances  and  acts 
of  intercommunion.  It  is  doubtless  true  that  this  has 
been,  in  some  quarters,  a  blind  groping  after  something 
which  was  felt  to  be  desirable  but  the  true  character  of 
which  was  not  understood;  nevertheless,  the  motion  was 
distinctly  toward  unity,  however  imperfectly  the  true  idea 
was  realised.  That  the  impulse,  everywhere,  has  been 
and  is  a  good  one,  and  GoD-directed,  who  can  doubt? 

The  day  is  rapidly  passing  away,  if  not  already  past, 
when  men  of  intelligence  can  afford  to  defend  or  apolo- 
gise for  division.  The  evils  of  it  are  too  apparent.  When 
we  see  three  or  four  ministers,  of  as  many  different  de- 
nominations, in  a  village  barely  capable  of  supporting 
one;  when  it  is  evident  that  these  ministers  are  compet- 
itors for  the  patronage  of  the  public — this  is  really  the 
way  to  put  it — and  are  often  driven  by  the  necessities  of 
their  position  to  the  use  of  expedients  that  are  discred- 
itable to  the  religion  they  profess;  when  their  time  is 
largely  taken  up  in  combating  each  other's  errors  or 
supposed   errors,   or,   worse  still,   in   getting  up   "  union 


10 

meetings"  and  then  quarrelling  over  or  descending  to  all 
sorts  of  tricks  and  stratagems  for  securing  the  converts; 
when  the  world,  perplexed  in  view  of  the  claims  of  numer- 
ous sects  and  disgusted  with  the  contentions  between 
them,  makes  these  things  an  excuse  for  unbelief  and 
wickedness;  when  thousands  upon  thousands  of  families 
in  rural  regions  are  permitted  to  go  without  any  religious 
ministrations,  to  which,  under  a  proper  system,  the  super- 
fluous village  ministers  might  go;  when,  even  in  our 
centres  of  population,  many  thousands  of  people  are  as 
much  deprived  of  the  Gospel,  practically,  as  the  tribes 
in  the  heart  of  Africa;  when  all  these,  with  the  fearful 
waste  of  po\ver  and  means,  and  the  many  other  evils  of 
the  present  state  of  things  are  considered,  one  cannot 
fail  to  feel  that  these  divisions  among  professed  Chris- 
tians are  not  only  disastrous,  but  wicked.  That  men  have 
felt  it  accounts  for  the  drift  toward  unity,  characteristic 
of  the  time. 

It  was  naturally  to  be  expected  that  the  ^rs,t  practical 
step  toward  the  securing  of  unity  would  be  taken  by  a 
historic  Church,  itself  possessed  of  all  things  essential  to 
visible  continuity  from  the  Church  of  the  Councils  and 
the  Fathers.  It  was  also  natural  that  such  a  body  should 
be  ready  to  yield  all  non-essentials,  and  that  it  should 
act  in  the  broadest  possible  spirit  of  Christian  love  in 
inviting  others  to  seek  for  the  restoration  of  that  primi- 
tive unity  which  its  own  position  enabled  it  so  fully  to  ap- 
preciate. The  historical  fact  is  in  accordance  with  these 
things. 

THE    FIRST    PRACTICAL    STEP 

in  this  direction,  in  this  country,  was  taken  by  the  Bishops 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  During  the  session 
of  the   General   Convention  of   1886,  memorials  on  this 


11 

subject  were  received  from  the  dioceses  of  Louisiana  and 
Kentucky,  and  from  bishops,  clergy,  and  laity  throughout 
the  country.  These  memorials  were  referred  to  a  com- 
mittee of  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  the  report  of  this 
committee  was  adopted  by  the  Bishops  in  Council.  It 
reads  as  follows : 

The  Committee  to  whom  were  referred  sundry  memorials 
addressed  to  the  Bishops  in  Council  and  to  the  House  of  Bishops, 
praying-  that  some  plan  may  be  devised  which,  in  a  practical 
way,  will  promote  the  restoration  of  Christian  unity,  all  which 
memorials  emanated  from  certain  of  the  clergy  and  of  the  laity 
of  the  Church,  the  former  numbering  about  one  thousand  and 
the  latter  nearly  two  thousand,  beg  to  report  that  they  have 
given  to  the  same  the  full  and  earnest  consideration  which  the 
gravity  of  the  subject  and  the  fervent  prayer  of  the  petitioners 
demanded. 

The  conclusions  of  your  Committee  are  set  forth  in  the  follow- 
ing preamble  and  declarations: 

Whereas,  In  the  year  1853,  in  response  to  a  Memorial 
signed  by  many  Presbyters  of  this  Church,  praying  that  steps 
might  be  taken  to  heal  the  unhappy  divisions  of  Christendom, 
and  to  more  fully  develop  the  Catholic  idea  of  the  Church  of 
Christ,  the  Bishops  of  this  Church  in  Council  assembled  did 
appoint  a  Commission  of  Bishops  empowered  to  confer  with  the 
several  Christian  Bodies  in  our  land  who  were  desirous  of  pro- 
moting godly  union  and  concord  among  all  who  loved  the  Lord 
Jesus  in  sincerity  and  truth; 

And  whereas,  This  Commission,  in  conformity  with  the  terms 
of  its  appointment,  did  formally  set  forth  and  advocate  sundry 
suggestions  and  recommendations  intended  to  accomplish  the 
great  end  in  view; 

And  whereas,  In  the  year  1880,  the  Bishops  of  the  American 
Church,  assembled  in  Council,  moved  by  the  appeals  from  Chris- 
tians in  foreign  countries  who  were  struggling  to  free  themselves 
from  the  usurpations  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  set  forth  a  declara- 
tion to  the  effect  that,  in  virtue  of  the  solidarity  of  the  Catholic 


12 

Episcopate,  in  which  we  have  part,  it  was  the  right  and  duty  of 
the  Episcopates  of  all  national  Churches  holding  to  the  primi- 
tive Faith  and  Order,  and  of  the  several  Bishops  of  the  same,  to 
protect  in  the  holding  of  that  Faith,  and  the  recovering  of  that 
Order,  those  who  have  been  wrongfully  deprived  of  both;  and 
this  without  demanding  a  rigid  uniformity,  or  the  sacrifice  of  the 
national  traditions  of  worship  and  discipline,  or  of  their  rightful 
autonomy; 

And  whereas,  Many  of  the  faithful  in  Christ  Jesus  among  us 
are  praying  with  renewed  and  increasing  earnestness  that  some 
measures  may  be  adopted  at  this  time  for  the  reunion  of  the 
sundered  parts  of  Christendom:  Now,  therefore,  in  pursuance  of 
the  action  taken  in  1853  for  the  healing  of  the  divisions  among 
Christians  in  our  own  land,  and  in  1880  for  the  protection  and 
encouragement  of  those  who  had  withdrawn  from  the  Roman 
Obedience,  we,  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America,  in  council  assembled  as  Bishops 
in  the  Church  of  God,  do  hereby  solemnly  declare  to  all  whom 
it  may  concern,  and  specially  to  our  fellow-Christians  of  the 
different  Communions  in  this  land,  who,  in  their  several  spheres, 
have  contended  for  the  religion  of  Christ: 

1.  Our  earnest  desire  that  the  Saviour's  prayer,  "That  we 
may  all  be  one,"  may,  in  its  deepest  and  truest  sense,  be  speedily 
fulfilled; 

2.  That  we  believe  that  all  who  have  been  duly  baptized  with 
water,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  are  members  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church; 

3.  That  in  all  things  of  human  ordering  or  human  choice, 
relating  to  the  modes  of  worship  and  discipUne,  or  to  traditional 
customs,  this  Church  is  ready  in  the  spirit  of  love  and  humility 
to  forego  all  preferences  of  her  own; 

4.  That  this  Church  does  not  seek  to  absorb  other  Com- 
munions, but  rather,  co-operating  with  them  on  the  basis  of  a 
common  Faith  and  Order,  to  discountenance  schism,  to  heal  the 
wounds  of  the  Body  of  Christ,  and  to  promote  the  charity  which 
is  the  chief  of  Christian  graces  and  the  visible  manifestation  of 
Christ  to  the  world; 

But   furthermore,  we   do   hereby   afifirm    that  the    Christian 


13 

unity  now  so  earnestly  desired  by  the  memorialists,  can  be 
restored  only  by  the  return  of  all  Christian  communions  to  the 
principles  of  unity  exemplified  by  the  undivided  Catholic  Church 
during  the  first  ages  of  its  existence;  which  principles  we  believe 
to  be  the  substantial  deposit  of  Christian  Faith  and  Order 
committed  by  Christ  and  His  Apostles  to  the  Church  unto  the 
end  of  the  world,  and  therefore  incapable  of  compromise  or 
surrender  by  those  who  have  been  ordained  to  be  its  stewards 
and  trustees  for  the  common  and  equal  benefit  of  all  men. 

As  inherent  parts  of  this  sacred  deposit,  and  therefore  as 
essential  to  the  restoration  of  unity  among  the  divided  branches 
of  Christendom,  we  account  the  following,  to  wit: 

1.  The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  as  the 
revealed  Word  of  God. 

2.  The  Nicene  Creed  as  the  sufficient  statement  of  the  Chris- 
tian Faith. 

3.  The  two  Sacraments, — Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the 
Lord, — ministered  with  unfailing  use  of  Christ's  words  of  insti- 
tution and  of  the  elements  ordained  by  Him. 

4.  The  Historic  Episcopate,  locally  adapted  in  the  methods 
of  its  administration  to  the  varying  needs  of  the  nations  and 
peoples  called  of  God  into  the  unity  of  His  Church. 

Furthermore,  Deeply  grieved  by  the  sad  divisions  which 
affect  the  Christian  Church  in  our  own  land,  we  hereby  declare 
our  desire  and  readiness,  so  soon  as  there  shall  be  any  author- 
ized response  to  this  Declaration,  to  enter  into  brotherly  con- 
ference with  all  or  any  Christian  Bodies  seeking  the  restoration 
of  the  organic  unity  of  the  Church,  with  a  view  to  the  earnest 
study  of  the  conditions  under  which  so  priceless  a  blessing  might 
happily  be  brought  to  pass. 

A.  N.  LiTTLEJOHN, 

G.  T.  Bedell, 
M.  A.  De  Wolfe  Howe, 
Samuel  S.  Harris, 
J.  N.  Galleher. 
On  motion,  the  foregoing  report  was  adopted,  and  ordered  to 
be  printed,  and  communicated  to  the  House  of  Deputies.     [Jour- 
nal of  House  of  Bishops,  1888,  p.  79.] 


14 

Independent  action  was  also  taken  in  the  House  of 
Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  proposing  that  a  committee 
of  five  bishops,  five  presbyters,  and  five  laymen  should  be 
appointed  to  enter  into  communication  with  any  other 
Christian  bodies  seeking  the  restoration  of  unity.  Such 
a  committee  was  appointed,  and  through  it  this  declara- 
tion of  the  Bishops  was,  presumably,  made  known  to  the 
Christian  bodies  of  the  country.  Its  report  to  the  next 
General  Convention  will  be  looked  for  with  interest. 

This  advance  on  the  part  of  the  Bishops  was  met  in  a 
most  courteous  and  respectful  spirit  by  the  governing 
bodies  of  most  of  the  Protestant  Churches,  though  in 
some  quarters  and  especially  in  certain  Christian  periodi- 
cals, suspicion,  scorn,  and  a  most  uncharitable  question- 
ing of  sincerity  and  honesty  were  conspicuous.  On  the 
whole,  however,  the  Bishops  have  good  reason  to  be 
pleased  with  the  result  of  their  action.  Of  course,  as 
nothing  was  to  be  expected  from  the  authorities  of  the 
Roman  mission,  no  disappointment  could  result  from 
their  failure  to  make  official  response.  The  question  of 
unity  with  Rome  and  those  who  recognise  authority  in 
the  Papacy  must  wait  upon  the  withdrawal  of  the  Creed 
of  Pius  IV,  and  later  additions,  as  terms  of  communion. 

THE    SCOPE    OF    THE    DECLARATION. 

The  Bishops  undoubtedly  had  in  view,  primarily,  in 
making  this  declaration,  the  Protestant  bodies  in  this 
country.  A  good  deal  of  fault  has  been  found  with  them 
for  this,  some  urging  that  it  is  of  supreme  importance  not 
to  take  any  steps  that  might  seem  to  endanger  future 
intercommunion  with  the  Eastern  Churches,  and  others 
objecting  to  anything  that  might  further  separate  us  from 
the  Churches  in  communion  with  Rome.    While  it  is  cer- 


15 

tainly  well  to  guard  these  points  as  much  as  possible,  it 
would  seem  that  the  preeminent  need  and  the  end  to  be 
first  striven  for  by  us  is  unity  among  American  Chris- 
tians, It  is  very  certain  that  the  great  problem  before 
the  Church  in  this  country  is  the  preservation  of  this  na- 
tion in  the  Christian  faith.  This  is  her  GoD-given  mis- 
sion. If,  as  is  held  by  many,  the  Anglo-Saxon  is  now 
and  is  more  and  more  to  become  the  dominant  race  of 
the  world,  and  if  this  country  is  to  be  the  principal  home 
of  this  race,  from  which  it  will  some  day  go  out  to  stamp 
its  impress  on  all  the  other  races  of  the  world,  then  it  is 
more  important  to  make  this  nation  a  unit  for  Christ  than 
it  is  to  convert  to  Him  all  the  world  besides;  indeed,  to 
do  the  former  will  be  the  readiest  way  to  accomplish  our 
share  of  the  latter.  But,  whether  this  be  so  or  not,  there 
can  be  no  question  but  that  the  unification  of  all  the  non- 
Roman  Christians  of  this  country  would  be  the  most  im- 
portant possible  work  that  could  now  be  done  for  the 
nation  ;  as  it  would  also  be  the  most  effective  means  of 
counteracting  Romish  influences,  and  perhaps  of  detach- 
ing from  their  foreign  allegiance  those  of  our  citizens 
now  under  papal  domination,  and  attaching  them  to  the 
national  Church.  Whatever  obstacles  there  may  be, 
therefore,  to  the  securing  of  unity  among  non-Roman 
Christians  in  this  country,  should  be  studied  with  a  view 
to  their  removal;  for  in  this  unity  lies  the  hope  of  the 
future. 

THE    LAMBETH    CONFERENCE. 

It  may  be  noted  that  the  Lambeth  Conference  of 
1888,  at  which  there  were  present  one  hundred  and  forty- 
five  Bishops,  some  from  every  province  of  the  Anglican 
Communion,  including  twenty-nine  of  the  American  Bish- 
ops, adopted,  with  some  modifications,  the  four  essential 


16 

terms  of  communion  set  forth  by  the  American  Bishops, 
as  appHcable  to  the  question  of  Home  Re-union  in  the 
British  Isles.  The  Encyclical  letter  deals  with  the 
question  in  the  following  language: 

Home  Re-union. — After  anxious  discussion  we  have  resolved 
to  content  ourselves  with  laying  down  certain  articles  as  a  basis 
on  which  approach  may  be,  by  God's  blessing,  made  towards 
Home  Re-union.  These  articles,  four  in  number,  will  be  found 
in  the  appended  Resolutions. 

The  attitude  of  the  Anglican  Communion  towards  the  relig- 
ious bodies  now  separated  from  it  by  unhappy  divisions  would 
appear  to  be  this  : — 

We  hold  ourselves  in  readiness  to  enter  into  brotherly  con- 
ference with  any  of  those  who  may  desire  intercommunion  with 
us  in  a  more  or  less  perfect  form.  We  lay  down  conditions  on 
which  such  intercommunion  is,  in  our  opinion,  and  according  to 
our  conviction,  possible.  For  however  we  may  long  to  embrace 
those  now  alienated  from  us,  so  that  the  ideal  of  the  one  flock 
under  the  one  Shepherd  may  be  realized,  we  must  not  be  un- 
faithful stewards  of  the  great  deposit  entrusted  to  us.  We  can- 
not desert  our  position  either  as  to  faith  or  discipline.  That 
concord  would,  in  our  judgment,  be  neither  true  nor  desirable 
which  should  be  produced  by  such  surrender.  But  we  gladly 
and  thankfully  recognize  the  real  religious  work  which  is  carried 
on  by  Christian  bodies  not  of  our  Communion.  We  cannot  close 
our  eyes  to  the  visible  blessing  which  has  been  vouchsafed  to 
their  labors  for  Christ's  sake.  Let  us  not  be  misunderstood  on 
this  point.  We  are  not  insensible  to  the  strong  ties,  the  rooted 
convictions,  which  attach  them  to  their  present  position.  These 
we  respect,  as  we  wish  that  on  our  side  our  own  principles  and 
feelings  may  be  respected.  Competent  observers,  indeed,  assert 
that  not  in  England  only,  but  in  all  parts  of  the  Christian  world, 
there  is  a  real  yearning  for  unity — that  men's  hearts  are  moved 
more  than  heretofore  towards  Christian  fellowship.  The  Confer- 
ence has  shown  in  its  discussions  as  well  as  its  resolutions  that 
it  is  deeply  penetrated  with  this  feeling.     May  the  Spirit  of  Love 


17 

move  on  the  troubled  waters  of  religious  differences.    [Lambeth 
Conferences,  p.  272.] 

The  appended  resolutions  referred  to  here  read  thus: 

11.  That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  Conference,  the  following  Ar- 
ticles supply  a  basis  on  which  approach  may  be,  by  God's  bless- 
ing, made  towards  Home  Reunion  : — 

{A)  The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
as  "  containing  all  things  necessary  to  salvation,"  and  as  being 
the  rule  and  ultimate  standard  of  faith. 

{B)  The  Apostles'  Creed,  as  the  Baptismal  Symbol,  and  the 
Nicene  Creed  as  the  sufficient  statement  of  the  Christian  faith. 

{€)  The  two  Sacraments  ordained  by  Christ  Himself— Bap- 
tism and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord — ministered  with  unfailing  use 
of  Christ's  words  of  Institution,  and  of  the  elements  ordained  by 
Him. 

{D)  The  Historic  Episcopate,  locally  adapted  in  the  methods 
of  its  administration  to  the  varying  needs  of  the  nations  and 
peoples  called  of  God  into  the  Unity  of  His  Church. 

The  follovi^ing  paragraph  is  also  of  interest  in  this 
connection  : 

12.  That  this  Conference  earnestly  requests  the  constituted 
authorities  of  the  various  branches  of  our  Communion,  acting,  so 
far  as  may  be,  in  concert  with  ^one  another,  to  make  it  known 
that  they  hold  themselves  in  readiness  to  enter  into  brotherly 
conference  (such  as  that  which  has  already  been  proposed  by  the 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America)  with  the  representa- 
tives of  other  Christian  Communions  in  the  English-speaking 
races,  in  order  to  consider  what  steps  can  be  taken  either  to. 
wards  corporate  Reunion  or  towards  such  relations  as  may  pre- 
pare the  way  for  fuller  organic  unity  hereafter.     [Ibid,  p.  280.] 

It  is  earnestly  to  be  hoped  that  this  action  v^ill  lead 
to  union  among  Christians  in  all  the  British  Possessions, 
but  in  any  case  the  American  Church  has  her  own  work 
to  do,  and  must  give  herself  to  it,  whatever  may  be  done 


18 

or  left  undone  in  foreign  lands.  In  doing  her  own  pecu- 
liar work  she  has  no  need  to  be  regardful  of  foreign 
Churches  beyond  what  is  required  by  Catholic  principles 
and  a  fraternal  affection  for  brethren  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ. 

independence  of  national  churches. 

Nothing  is  clearer  in  the  history  of  the  early  Churches 
than  that,  while  they  were  careful  to  maintain  unity  in 
essentials,  they  were  tenacious  of  their  rights  as  autono- 
mous bodies,  and  exercised  their  own  judgment  and  gov- 
erned themselves  in  all  non-essentials.  I'he  differences 
in  the  mode  of  the  reception  of  heretics  and  schismatics 
into  communion  are  an  illustration  of  this.  True,  as  the 
organisation  of  the  Church  was  conformed  more  and 
more  to  that  of  the  empire,  this  liberty  was  encroached 
upon  until  little  by  little  it  almost  passed  away,  and  then 
was  finally  lost  in  the  West,  under  the  papacy;  but  it  is 
our  privilege  to  re-assert  it  and  to  claim  and  exercise  our 
rights  as  an  autonomous  and  autocephalous  Churchy 
leading  the  way,  if  need  be,  in  the  regaining  of  this  lib- 
erty, even  at  some  expense  of  temporary  discord.  It  is 
scarcely  to  be  doubted,  however,  that  what  is  seen  to  be 
true,  wise,  and  expedient  by  the  American  Church  would 
be  accepted  as  such  by  the  Anglican  Communion  gener- 
ally; though,  should  it  be  otherwise,  we  are  not  and  can- 
not be  bound  by  any  action  of  foreign  Churches  in  matters 
pertaining  to  our  own  discipline  ;  but  must  manfully  exer- 
cise our  lawful  liberty,  working  wisely  in  the  performance 
of  our  own  work  in  our  own  special  field,  maintaining  our 
own  rights  and  conceding  to  others  theirs. 

Unity  among  the  Churches  which  go  to  make  up 
what  we  call  the  Anglican  Communion  is  an  important 
and  valuable  possession,  and  we  should  do  nothing  lightly 


19 

to  disturb  it ;  but  the  self  governing  power  of  national 
Churches  is  also  a  priceless  treasure,  which  must  not  be 
■sacrificed  for  a  temporary  good,  but  must  be  preserved  at 
any  cost. 

The  one  evil  to  be  feared  in  our  close  connection 
with  the  English  Church  is  that,  from  a  sentimental  re. 
g3.rd  to  the  brilliant  and  majestic  mother  Church,  we  shall 
*be  led  to  yield  more  of  our  rightful  liberty  than  we  ought. 
When  a  daughter  marries,  her  first  duty  becomes  loving 
loyalty  to  her  spouse  ;  with  which  mothers-in-law  are  sup- 
posed sometimes  to  interfere.  The  American  Church 
must  be  careful  not  to  let  her  love  for  her  mother  seduce 
her  from  unswerving  loyalty  to  her  Divine  spouse,  whose 
commands  are  her  supreme  law,  and  whose  gifts  are  her 
most  precious  treasures.  Among  these  gifts  what  is  more 
precious  than  that  liberty  wherewith  He  has  made  us 
'free  ? 

THE    CHIEF    OBSTACLE    TO    UNITY. 

It  is  evident  from  the  responses  made  to  and  the  com- 
ments on  the  declaration  of  the  Bishops  that  the  fourth 
term  of  communion  set  forth  by  them — the  historic  epis- 
copate— is  considered  by  many  as  the  one  great  obstacle 
to  unity.  And  if  it  is  to  be  understood  as  involving  the 
reordination  of  all  ministers  not  having  what  we  call 
episcopal  orders,  it  must  be  admitted  that  this  is  certainly 
one  of  the  chief  obstacles  in  the  way. 

Many  Protestant  ministers  who  have  come  to  see  the 
value  of  the  episcopal  form  of  Church  government  are  not 
prepared  to  admit  that  their  present  orders  are  invalid, 
and  to  submit  to  a  new  ordination  at  the  hands  of  our 
bishops.  And  in  this  they  have  the  sympathy  of  a  con- 
siderable proportion  of  the  members  and  a  not  insignifi- 
cant   number  of  the    Clergy  of   the  Episcopal    Church. 


20 

This  is  a  most  important  fact;  for  if  the  Church  does  not 
require  her  members  or  even  her  clergy  to  subscribe  to 
any  particular  theory  of  Orders,  there  is  no  good  reason 
why  she  should  impose  any  theory  upon  ministers  of 
other  religious  bodies  who  desire  to  enter  into  commu- 
nion with  her.  If,  therefore,  good  and  fit  men  now  min- 
istering in  non-episcopal  bodies  are  disposed  to  accept 
the  historic  episcopate  as  a  valuable  if  not  an  essential 
factor  in  the  work  of  preserving  and  propagating  the 
Christian  faith,  but  are  repelled  by  the  requirement  of 
reordination,  we  ought  to  be  very  sure  that  such  reordi- 
nation  is  essential  before  we  insist  upon  it ;  and  we 
ought  to  seek  diligently  and  earnestly  for  the  removal  of 
this  obstacle  to  unity,  provided  it  can  be  removed  with- 
out the  sacrifice  of  any  essential  principle. 

The  question  certainly  deserves  a  most  serious,  im- 
partial, and  thorough  consideration,  for  whatever  other 
obstacles  to  unity  there  may  be — and  there  are  other  not 
unimportant  ones — this  lies  at  the  very  threshold  of  the 
subject,  and  must  be  determined  by  itself. 

THE    LESSON    FROM    HISTORY. 

This  is  not  by  any  means  the  first  time  in  the  history 
of  the  Catholic  Church  that  a  situation  similar  to  that  in 
which  we  find  ourselves  has  confronted  her.  There 
must  be  something,  therefore,  in  her  action  in  the  past,  to 
indicate  to  us  the  principles  upon  which  we  should  deal 
with  the  great  problem  demanding  solution  at  our  hands. 
The  work  before  us,  then,  is  to  examine  into  the  history 
of  past  action  for  the  healing  of  divisions,  and  see  whether 
we  can  find  any  definite  principles  which  we  can  apply  to 
our  own  circumstances,  so  as  to  facilitate  the  unification 
of  American  Christians. 


21 

EVILS    OF    FALSE    THEORIES. 

Before  we  enter  upon  this  historical  examination, 
however,  it  is  necessary  to  clear  the  ground  by  the  re- 
moval of  certain  difficulties  in  the  way  of  a  proper  esti- 
mate of  the  result  of  this  examination — difficulties  arising 
from  the  prevalence  of  false  theories  and  false  assump- 
tions, which  would  tend  to  prevent  our  arriving  at  true 
conclusions,  however  plainly  the  historical  facts  might  be 
set  before  us. 

Probably  the  greatest  evils  existing  in  the  theological 
world  to-day  are  of  this  character.  We  are  too  much 
given  to  traditionalism — to  accepting  and  holding  certain 
vi^ws  because  they  have  been  and  are  sanctioned  by  great 
names,  and  failing  to  go  to  the  bottom  of  things  and  see 
for  ourselves  what  are  the  ultimate  facts. 

"  SECOND-HANDNESS." 

Canon  Farrar,  in  describing  the  Rabbis  and  their 
teaching  \Life  of  Christ,  Vol.  I.,  p.  266,  n.],  coins  a  word 
which  admirably  describes  this  habit.  He  calls  it  "  sec- 
ond-handness."  Notwithstanding  the  character  of  our 
age  and  the  facilities  existing  for  independent  investiga- 
tion, there  is  entirely  too  much  of  this  habit  among  us. 
In  fact,  while  the  age  has  put  into  our  hands  unrivalled 
facilities  for  such  investigation,  it  has  also  abundantly 
offered  to  our  indolence  temptations  to  escape  the  labour 
involved  in  it.  Dictionaries,  cyclopedias,  compends,  and 
text-books,  while  very  convenient  things  for  the  real  stu- 
dent, are  wofully  misleading  to  others,  and  are  doubtless 
largely  responsible  for  the  superficiality  and  the  erroneous 
notions  so  widely  prevailing. 

The  study  of  the  great  divines  of  the  reformed 
Church    of   England  and  the  great  theologians    of  the 


middle  ages  is  a  very  good  thing,  provided  one  has  time 
to  give  to  them  as  well  as  to  the  earlier  sources  from 
which  they  derived  their  learning ;  but  to  study  them  and 
not  verify  their  references  and  test  their  interpretations 
is  to  give  one's  self  up  to  be  led  astray.  Certainly  there 
is  no  excuse  for  the  student  who  pursues  this  course  now- 
adays ;  for,  however  he  may  be  obliged  to  rely  on  these 
middlemen  for  assistance,  in  many  respects,  he  need  not 
be  at  their  mercy  ;  but  having  access  to  the  Scriptures, 
the  early  Fathers,  and  the  acts  of  the  Councils,  he  is  able 
to  get  at  the  original  facts  and  to  form  his  own  conclu- 
sions. 

As  an  illustration  of  this  second-handness,  perhaps 
nothing  better  can  be  found  than  the  remark  made  by 
one  not  long  since,  as  follows : 

When  a  man  knows  his  Summa,  his  theology  will  be  im- 
pregnable. 

Now,  Thomas  Aquinas  was  doubtless  a  great  scholar,  and 
his  work  is  very  valuable,  but,  considering  the  time  in 
which  he  lived  and  the  circumstances  which  surrounded 
him,  he  certainly  cannot  be  esteemed  a  safe  guide  for  us. 
Why  should  we  be  content  with  a  writer  of  the  thirteenth 
century  as  our  ultimate  guide  and  instructor  in  theology, 
when  we  can  have  all  the  writers  of  the  Ante-Nicene 
period  to  show  us  what  was  taught  and  practised  in  the 
earliest  ages  of  Christianity?  It  is  from  such  second- 
handness  that  we  derive  our  false  assumptions  and  erro- 
neous theories. 

LAWRENCE    AND    BINGHAM. 

How  these  things  vitiate  our  reasonings  and  destroy 
the  force  of  our  conclusions  may  be  seen  from  the  famous 
controversy   between    Lawrence    and    Bingham,    on    lay 


23 

baptism,  so-called.  The  former,  assuming  the  correctness 
of  a  certain  theory  of  the  indelibility  of  Orders,  argued 
that  because  the  Nicene  Council,  as  he  interpreted  its 
action,  received  the  Novatian  clerics  without  reordaining 
them,  therefore  it  recognised  their  orders  as  valid,  and 
for  this  reason  did  not  require  them  to  be  rebaptised. 
Bingham,  on  the  other  hand,  denied  this  conclusion, 
contending,  rightly,  that  the  Novatians  had  no  orders; 
but  he  assumed  that  they  were  therefore  laymen  and  their 
baptism  lay  baptism,  and  argued  that  in  receiving  them 
without  rebaptism  the  Council  recognised  the  validity  of 
lay  baptism!  Both  these  assumptions  were  false,  and  the 
conclusions  based  on  them  were  therefore  worthless. 

A  SOPHISTICAL  DISTINCTION. 

Lawrence's  theory  of  the  indelibility  of  orders  prevails 
largely  among  us  to-day,  and  closely  connected  with  it  is 
the  distinction  made  between  invalid  acts  and  acts  un- 
canonical  and  irregular  but  valid ;  which  gave  rise  to  the 
sophistical  application,  in  theology,  of  the  legal  maxim  : 
Fieri  non  debet,  sed  factum  valet. ^  That  this  maxim  has 
a  proper  sphere  is  true,  but  it  is  not  that  in  which  theolo- 
gians principally  use  it.  In  this  it  is  simply  assuming 
the  point  in  dispute. 

The  genius  of  Augustine,  the  renowned  bishop  of 
Hippo,  has  exercised  a  most  powerful  influence  on  the 
Western  Church,  and  to  him  we  are  indebted  for  these 
and  some  other  things  for  which  we  do  not  need  to  be 
thankful.  The  Ante-Nicene  Church  knew  nothing  of 
them,  as  we  shall  see. 

THE    REMEDY. 

Stripping  ourselves,  then,   as  far  as  possible,    of  all 

*It  ought  not  to  have  been  done,  but  being  done  it  is  valid. 


24 

prejudices  and  prepossessions,  let  us  go  back  to  the  first 
ages ;  for,  as  Cyprian,  the  noble  bishop  of  Carthage,  has 
well  said: 

There  is  a  brief  way  for  religious  and  simple  minds,  both  to 
put  away  error,  and  to  find  and  elicit  truth.  For  if  we  return  to 
the  head  and  source  of  divine  tradition,  human  error  ceases. 
\Epistle  LXXIIL,  lo.]* 

Before  Cyprian,  Irenseus  and  Tertullian  had  enun- 
ciated the  same  principle,  and  it  is  without  question  the 
only  safe  one  to  follow  in  all  that  relates  to  our  holy 
religion — its  faith,  its  order,  and  its  practise. 

*  Quotations  from  the  Ante-Nicene  writers  are  taken  from  the  American  edition 
of  the  Ante-Nicene  Christian  Library,  unless  otherwise  noted. 


II. 

THE  INDELIBILITY   OF   ORDERS. 

THE  theories  referred  to  have  greatly  obscured  the  true 
view  of  holy  orders,  and  it  is  our  task  now,  there- 
fore, to  show  that  they  had  no  place  in  the  mind  of  the 
Primitive  Church,  but  were  the  product  of  later  times ; 
originating  in  the  exigencies  of  argument,  and  being 
developed  by  degrees,  as  earlier  principles  became  over- 
laid and  finally  lost  out  of  sight. 

THE   APPEAL    TO    ANTIQUITY. 

This  is  a  good  place,  however,  at  which  to  call  atten- 
tion to  the  manner  in  which  the  appeal  to  antiquity  is 
often  made,  and  made  most  unjustly.  One  illustration 
must  suffice,  and  it  shall  be  taken  from  no  less  a  scholar 
than  the  usually  most  judicious  Dr.  Waterland.  Speaking 
of  the  position  taken  by  Bingham  on  the  question  of  the 
indelibility  of  orders,  he  says : 

I  cannot  but  wonder  at  Mr.  Bingham's  strange  attempt* 
strange  in  a  man  of  his  learning  and  sagacity,  to  overthrow  this 
so  well-grounded  notion  of  the  indelible  character  of  orders,  by 
which,  whatever  he  pretends,  he  runs  cross  to  all  antiquity 
(except  the  African  Church  in  the  time  of  St.  Cyprian  and  a  few 
years  before  and  after),  etc.  [Second  Letter  to  Kelsall,  Works, 
Vol.  VI.,  p.  174.] 

After  such  a  sweeping  appeal  to  "  all  antiquity,"  with 
so  limited  an  exception,  one  is  entitled  to  expect  the 
writer  to  go  back  to  the  earliest  times ;  yet  Dr.  Water- 
land's  earliest  witness  is  Augustine-  * 

*  Augustine  was  bishop  of  Hippo,  A.D.  395-430. 

25 


26 

THE    ROMAN    THEORY. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  Augustine  is  the  first  who  formu- 
lates what  may  not  improperly  be  termed  the  Roman 
theory  of  the  indelibility  of  Orders,  which  Waterland 
held.  It  seems  to  have  been  foreshadowed,  however,  by 
an  utterance  of  Callistus,  a  heretical  bishop  of  Rome, 
A.D.  217,  who  is  reported  by  Hippolytus  as  saying: 

If  a  bishop  was  guilty  of  any  sin,  if  even  a  sin  unto  death,  he 
ought  not  to  be  deposed.  {Refutation  of  all  Heresies^  IX.,  7. 
See  also  Gore,  Christian  Ministry,  p.  188.] 

FORMULATED   BY    AUGUSTINE. 

Augustine,  in  his  controversy  with  the  Donatists, 
driven  by  the  exigencies  of  his  position,  expanded  this 
idea  and  gave  it  form.  First,  speaking  of  baptism  being 
given  outside  the  Church,  and  also  being  taken  out  from 
her  by  those  who  fall  into  schism,  he  says: 

The  sacrament  of  baptism  is  what  the  person  possesses  who 
is  baptized;  and  the  sacrament  of  conferring  baptism  is  what  he 
possesses  who  is  ordained.  And  as  the  baptized  person,  if  he 
depart  from  the  unity  of  the  Church,  does  not  thereby  lose  the 
sacrament  of  baptism,  so  also  he  who  is  ordained,  if  he  depart 
from  the  unity  of  the  Church,  does  not  lose  the  sacrament  of 
conferring  baptism.  \0n  Baptism,  Against  the  Donatists,  Book 
I.,  Chap.  I.,  Clark's  edition,  Ante-Nicene  Christian  Library.'] 

In  another  place,  applying  his  principle  to  ordination, 
and  arguing  that  as  those  who  have  been  baptised  among 
heretics  are  validly  baptised,  so  those  who  have  been 
ordained  among  them  are  validly  ordained,  he  says: 

For  each  is  a  sacrament,  and  each  is  given  a  man  by  a  kind 
of  consecration,  the  one  when  he  is  baptized,  the  other  when  he 
is  ordained  ;  and  hence  it  is  not  lawful  in  the  Catholic  Church  to 
repeat  either.     For  whensoever,  for  the  good  of  peace,  even  the 


27 

leaders,  coming-  from  the  schismatic  party  itself,  the  error  of 
their  schism  having  been  corrected,  have  been  received,  and  it 
has  been  deemed  expedient  that  they  should  bear  the  same 
offices  which  they  bore  before,  they  have  not  been  ordained 
again;  but  as  their  baptism  so  their  ordination  remained  entire 
in  them;  because  the  fault,  which  was  corrected  by  the  peace  of 
unity  was  in  the  separation,  not  in  the  sacraments,  which 
wheresoever  they  are,  retain  their  nature.  [A^avist  Pannenian, 
Book  II.,  Chap.  13,  quoted  by  Courayer,  Validity  of  Anglican 
Ordinations,  Chap.  XIV.] 

Much  more  to  the  same  effect  is  to  be  found  in  the 
writings  of  Augustine,  and  under  their  influence  the 
theory  gradually  made  its  way  to  acceptance  in  the  Wes- 
tern Church.  It  is  set  forth  as  the  Catholic  doctrine  by 
Thomas  Aquinas  [Hagenbach,  History  of  Doctrines,  Vol. 
II.,  p.  119],  and  also  by  Bellarmine  in  his  work  De  Sac- 
ramento Ordinis  [Bingham,  Scholastical  History  of  Lay 
Baptism,  Part  II.,  Chap.  VI.,  Section  5]. 

THE    CONSEQUENCE. 

According  to  this  theory  a  man  having  once  been 
ordained,  even  in  schism  and  heresy,  has  power  to  val- 
idly perform  all  the  functions  of  his  office,  and  can  never 
be  deprived  of  it,  even  if  he  be  deposed  and  excommuni- 
cated and  cast  out  of  the  Church  ;  so  that  his  ministra- 
tions are  always  valid  and  effectual  to  the  person  receiv- 
ing them,  though  uncanonical,  forbidden,  and  sinful  as 
regards  the  minister. 

THIS    THEORY    NOT    CATHOLIC. 

That  this  theory  was  unknown  to  the  Church  previ- 
ous to  Augustine's  time,  and  was  only  gradually  received 
after  it,  the  following  pages  will  show. 

It  will,  perhaps,  be  sufficient  to  give  such  canons  of 


28 

the  General  Councils  and  of  those  Councils  approved  at 
Chalcedon,  and  such  of  the  Apostolic  Canons  as  bear  on 
the  subject. 

THE    APOSTOLICAL    CANONS. 

These  are  the  earliest  laws  of  the  Church  we  have, 
none  of  them  being  later  than  the  fourth  century,  and  a 
number  of  them  dating  back,  at  least  in  substance,  to 
Apostolic  times.  Many  of  them  deal  with  the  discipline 
of  the  Clergy,  and  the  penalties  prescribed  for  various 
offences  include  suspension,  deposition,  excommunica- 
tion, and  casting  out  of  the  Church.  Certain  of  them 
declare,  directly  or  implicitly,  that  ordinations  performed 
under  certain  conditions  are  null  and  void. 

Canons  17,  18,  19  and  76  refer  to  orders  in  the 
Church.     They  read  as  follows  :  * 

17.  He  who  after  Baptism  has  been  twice  married,  or  has 
had  a  concubine,  cannot  be  a  Bishop,  Presbyter,  or  Deacon,  nor 
be  on  the  sacerdotal  list  at  all. 

18.  He  who  has  married  a  widow,  or  a  divorced  woman,  or  a 
harlot,  or  a  slave,  or  an  actress,  cannot  be  a  Bishop,  Presbyter, 
or  Deacon,  nor  be  on  the  sacerdotal  list  at  all. 

19.  He  who  has  married  two  sisters  or  a  niece  cannot  be  a 
clergyman. 

76.  It  is  unlawful  for  a  Bishop  desiring  to  gratify  a  brother,  or 
a  son,  or  some  other  relative,  to  ordain  whom  he  will  to  the  dig- 
nity of  the  Episcopate.  For  it  is  not  just  to  make  heirs  of  his 
episcopal  office,  and  through  natural  affection  to  give  away 
the  things  which  are  God's.  It  is  not  lawful  to  bequeath  the 
Church  of  GOD  to  heirs;  and  if  any  one  shall  do  this  let  the  ordi- 
nation be  void,  and  let  himself  be  punished  with  suspension. 

The  first  three  of  these  canons  implicitly  make  void 

*  As  translated  in  Dr.  Fulton's  Index  Canonum.  The  translations  of  the  Canons 
throughout  this  book  are  taken  from  the  above  work  or  Hefele's  History  of  the  Coun- 
cils, indifferently,  except  where  otherwise  noted. 


any  ordination  of  such  persons  as  are  specified,  or  at 
least  make  them  liable  to  deposition,  while  the  last  is 
direct  and  positive  in  its  declaration  of  the  nullity  of 
such  an  ordination  as  is  mentioned. 

Others  of  these  canons  are  positive  in  their  declara- 
tion of  the  nullity  of  heretical  ordinations,  and  it  must 
be  remembered  that  this  term  applies  to  the  ordinations 
of  all  separated  bodies,  though  they  might  be  only  schis- 
matical,  in  the  later  sense. 

46.  We  ordain  that  any  Bishop  or  Presbyter  who  shall  admit 
the  baptism  or  the  sacrifice  of  heretics  shall  be  deposed;  for  what 
communion  hath  Christ  with  Belial  ?  or  what  part  hath  the 
faithful  man  with  an  unbeliever  ? 

47.  If  a  Bishop  or  Presbyter  shall  rebaptize  one  who  has 
true  baptism,  or  will  not  baptize  one  who  has  been  polluted  by 
the  impious,  let  him  be  deposed,  as  one  who  mocks  the  cross 
and  death  of  Christ,  and  who  makes  no  distinction  between  true 
priests  and  false. 

68,  If  any  Bishop,  Presbyter,  or  Deacon  shall  receive  from 
any  one  a  second  ordination,  let  both  him  and  his  ordainer  be 
deposed,  unless  it  should  be  proved  that  he  had  his  ordination 
from  heretics;  for  it  is  not  possible  that  they  who  are  baptized  or 
ordained  by  such  can  be  either  of  the  faithful  or  the  clergy. 

If  we  compare  these  with  Ganon  6  of  the  second 
General  Council  we  shall  see  how  sweeping  they  are. 
This  canon  deals  with  the  bringing  of  accusations  against 
Catholic  bishops  and  prohibits  their  reception  from  her- 
etics.    It  then  defines  heretics  as  follows  : 

By  heretics  we  mean  both  those  who  were  aforetime  cast  out 
and  those  whom  we  ourselves  have  since  anathematized,  and 
also  those  professing  to  hold  the  true  faith  who  have  separated 
from  our  canonical  bishops,  and  set  up  conventicles  in  opposi- 
tion [to  them]. 

So  heretical  orders  were  counted   as  absolutely  void 


30 

by  the  framers  of  these  canons,  and  by  heretical  orders 
we  are  to  understand  all  orders  proceeding  from  those 
who  were  separated  from  the  Catholic  Church,  whether 
they  were  heretical  in  doctrine  or  not. 

THE    NICENE    CANONS. 

The  following  canons  of  the  Nicene  Council  make 
certain  ordinations  void  : 

9.  If  any  Presbyters  have  been  advanced  without  examina- 
tion, or  if  upon  examination  they  have  made  confession  of 
crime,  and  men  acting  in  violation  of  the  Canon  have  laid  hands 
upon  them,  notwithstanding  their  confession,  these  men  the 
Canon  does  not  admit,  for  the  Catholic  Church  justifies  that 
[only]  which  is  blameless. 

15.  On  account  of  the  great  disturbance  and  discords  that 
occur  it  is  decreed  that  the  custom  prevailing  in  certain  places, 
contrary  to  the  [Apostolical]  Canon,  must  by  all  means  be  done 
away,  so  that  neither  Bishop,  Presbyter,  nor  Deacon  shall  pass 
from  city  to  city.  And  if  any  one,  after  this  decree  of  the  Holy 
and  Great  Synod,  shall  attempt  any  such  thing  or  continue  in 
any  such  course,  his  proceedings  shall  be  utterly  void,  and  he 
shall  be  restored  to  the  Church  in  which  he  was  ordained  Bishop 
or  Presbyter. 

16.  Neither  Presbyters  nor  Deacons  nor  any  others  enrolled 
among  the  Clergy,  who,  not  having  the  fear  of  GOD  before  their 
eyes,  nor  regarding  the  Canon  of  the  Church,  shall  recklessly 
remove  from  their  own  Church,  ought  by  any  means  to  be  re- 
ceived by  another  Church;  but  every  constraint  should  be 
applied  to  restore  them  to  their  own  Parishes;  and,  if  they  will 
not  go,  they  must  be  suspended  from  their  ministry.  And  if 
any  [Bishop]  shall  dare  surreptitiously  to  take  and  in  his  own 
Church  ordain  a  man  belonging  to  another,  without  the  consent 
of  his  own  proper  Bishop,  from  whom  he  has  seceded,  let  the 
ordination  be  void. 

The  Fathers  of  the  first  General   Council  evidently 


31 

thought  they  had  power  to  make  certain  ordinations 
void,  and  the  second  of  these  canons  seems  to  include 
baptisms  also,  as  it  refers  to  the  acts  of  Presbyters  and 
Deacons  as  well  as  Bishops. 

THE  CANONS  OF     ANTIOCH. 

The  following  canons  of  the  Council  of  Antioch,  A.D. 
341,  declare  certain  ordinations  to  be  null  and  void. 

13.  No  Bishop  shall  presume  to  pass  from  one  Province  to 
another  and  ordain  persons  to  the  dignity  of  the  ministry  in  the 
Church,  not  even  should  he  have  others  with  him,  unless  he 
should  go  at  the  written  invitation  of  the  Metropolitan  and 
Bishops  in  whose  country  he  goes.  But  if  he  should  without 
invitation  proceed  irregularly  to  the  ordination  of  any,  or  to  the 
regulation  of  ecclesiastical  affairs  which  do  not  concern  him,  the 
things  done  by  him  shall  be  disallowed,  and  he  himself  shall 
suffer  the  due  punishment  of  his  irregularity  and  his  unreason- 
able undertaking  by  being  forthwith  deposed  by  the  Holy 
Synod. 

19.  A  Bishop  shall  not  be  ordained  without  a  Synod  and  the 
presence  of  the  Metropolitan  of  the  Province.  And  when  he  is  pres- 
ent it  is  by  all  means  better  that  all  his  brethren  in  the  ministry 
of  the  Province  should  assemble  together  with  him,  and  these  the 
Metropolitan  ought  to  invite  by  letter.  And  it  were  better 
that  all  should  meet;  but  if  this  be  difficult  it  is  by  all  means 
necessary  that  a  majority  be  present,  or  take  part  by  letter,  in 
the  election,  and  that  thus  the  appointment  should  be  made  in 
the  presence  or  with  the  consent  of  the  majority;  but  if  it  should 
be  done  contrary  to  these  decrees,  the  ordination  shall  be  of  no 
force.  And  if  the  appointment  should  be  made  according  to  the 
prescribed  Canon,  and  any  should  object  through  natural  love  of 
contradiction,  the  decision  of  the  majority  shall  prevail. 

22.  A  Bishop  may  not  enter  a  city  [which  belongs]  to  an- 
other and  is  not  subject  to  himself,  nor  may  he  enter  into  a 
district  which  does  not  belong  to  him,  either  to  ordain  any  one, 
or  to  appoint  Presbyters  and  Deacons  to  places  within  the  juris- 


32 

diction  of  another  Bishop,  unless  with  the  consent  of  the  proper 
Bishop  of  the  place.  And  if  any  one  shall  presume  to  do  any 
such  thing,  the  ordination  shall  be  void,  and  he  himself  shall  be 
punished  by  the  Synod. 

There  certainly  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  belief  of 
the  members  of  this  Council  in  their  power  to  annul 
ordinations  and  make  them  void  beforehand.  And  it  is 
to  be  remembered  that  these  canons  were  all  ratified  by 
the  fourth  General  Council,  A.D.  451. 

THE  FIRST  COUNCIL  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE. 

The  fourth  canon  of  this,  the  second  General  Council, 
A.D.  381,  is  as  follows: 

With  regard  to  the  Cynic  Maximus,  and  the  disorder  occa- 
sioned by  him  in  Constantinople,  (it  is  declared)  that  Maximus 
never  became  a  bishop,  and  is  not  one  now;  neither  are  any  of 
those  ordained  by  him  to  any  grade  whatsoever  of  the  clerical 
office  really  ordained,  as  everything  performed  about  him  (viz. 
his  consecration)  and  by  him  is  pronounced  invalid. 

There  can  be  no  dispute  as  to  the  meaning  of  this 
canon.  Its  language  is  absolute  and  unequivocal,  and 
impossible  to  be  explained  away.  The  Fathers  of  this 
Council  must  have  been  fully  convinced  that  such  an 
ordination  as  that  of  Maximus  was  null  and  void  from  the 
beginning ;  for  they  do  not  depose  him  from  the  episco- 
pate, but  assert  positively  that  he  had  not  been  admitted 
to  it.  The  nullity  of  the  ordination  was  not  dependent 
on  their  declaration  ;  but  was  recognised  and  declared  by 
them  to  be  null  from  the  beginning.  Doubtless,  the 
ground  upon  which  they  based  their  declaration  was  the 
existing  law  of  the  Church. 

THE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON. 

The   fourth    General    Council,    held   at    Chalcedon, 


33 

A.D.  451,  re-affirmed,  in  its  first  Canon,  the  canons  of  all 
preceding  General  Councils,  as  also  those  of  several  local 
Councils,  and  probably  the  Apostolical  Canons.  A  body 
of  Canon  law  had  now  been  formed  from  these  sources, 
which  the  Council  had  before  it.  The  Council  also 
enacted  canons  of  its  own,  of  which  the  following  declare, 
directly  or  implicitly,  certain  ordinations  to  be  void. 

2.  If  a  bishop  confers  ordination  for  money,  and  turns  the 
grace  which  cannot  be  bought  into  merchandise,  and  consecrates 
a  bishop,  or  chorepiscopus,  or  priest,  or  deacon,  or  any  other 
cleric,  or  appoints  for  money  an  ceconomus,  or  advocate,  or 
prosmonarios,  or  any  other  servant  of  the  Church,  for  the  sake 
of  base  gain,  upon  conviction  he  shall  endanger  his  own  office, 
and  he  who  is  ordained  shall  have  no  advantage  from  his  ordina- 
tion or  office  obtained  by  purchase,  but  shall  lose  the  dignity  or 
post  which  he  has  received  for  money.  But  if  any  one  has  acted 
as  a  mediator  in  these  shameful  and  unlawful  transactions,  then, 
if  he  is  a  cleric  he  shall  lose  his  own  post,  but  if  he  is  a  layman 
or  a  monk,  he  shall  be  anathematized. 

5.  In  regard  to  bishops  and  clerics  who  go  from  one  city  to 
another,  the  canons  set  forth  by  the  holy  fathers  respecting 
them  shall  have  validity. 

6.  No  one  shall  be  absolutely  ordained  either  priest  or 
deacon,  or  to  any  other  clerical  order,  unless  he  is  appointed 
specially  to  the  Church  of  the  city  or  of  the  village,  or  to  a  mar- 
tyr's chapel  or  monastery.  In  regard  to  those,  however,  who 
have  been  absolutely  ordained,  the  [holy]  Synod  decrees  that 
such  ordination  shall  be  without  effect,  and  that  they  shall 
nowhere  be  allowed  to  officiate,  to  the  shame  of  him  who  or- 
dained. 

Besides  the  general  ratification,  in  canon  i,  of  the 
body  of  Canon  law  now  recognised  as  in  force,  this  Coun- 
cil, in  canon  5,  gives  special  recognition  to  the  Nicene 
and  Antiochean  canons  on  intrusion,  and  in  canons  2  and 


34 

6  provides  for  certain  cases  not  sufficiently  provided  for 
before. 

It  may  be  well  to  note,  here,  the  distinctions  between 
the  different  canons  declaring  ordinations  to  be  void. 
We  have  (i)  certain  canons  decreeing  that  if  ordinations 
are  given  under  certain  prohibited  conditions  they  shall 
be  void;  (2)  certain  canons  recognising  the  force  of  these 
decrees  and  declaring  that  certain  ordinations  are  void ; 
and  (3)  certain  canons  declaring  that  ordinations  which 
have  been  given  under  specified  improper  conditions  are 
not  to  be  recognised  for  the  future  and  that  the  persons 
so  ordained  in  the  past  are  not  to  be  permitted  to  officiate. 
The  reason  for  this  last  is  plain  enough.  Such  ordina- 
tions not  having  been  previously  forbidden  and  declared 
null  beforehand  were  valid,  and  therefore  could  not  be 
treated  like  that  of  Maximus,  which  had  been  so  for- 
bidden and  nullified. 

THE    LAW    OF     THE    EARLY    CHURCH. 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  number  of  canons,  dating  from 
the  earliest  times  to  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  and 
the  earlier  ones  re-affirmed  at  this  later  date  by  a  General 
Council,  declaring  that  certain  ordinations  are  void,  null, 
of  no  effect.  Manifestly  this  is  entirely  inconsistent  with 
the  Roman  theory  of  the  indelibility  of  Orders. 

To  complete  our  investigation,  however,  we  must  now 
consider  certain  other  canons,  concerning  deposition  from 
the  Ministry. 

CANONS    ON    DEPOSITION. 

Various  of  these  are  important  in  connection  with  our 
subject  because  they  speak  of  deposition  in  such  terms 
as  to  show  that  any  ministerial  functions  performed  by 
deposed  ministers  were  considered  as  invalid  and  of  no 


I 


35 

effect.  Some  of  the  canons  already  quoted  and  many 
others  of  the  earlier  times  bear  upon  this  subject,  but  it 
will  be  necessary  to  transcribe  here  only  a  few  of  the 
strongest. 

ANTIOCH    AND    CHALCEDON.* 

The  following  canons  of  the  Council  of  Antioch, 
which  was  referred  to  as  having  its  canons  confirmed  at 
Chalcedon,  with  the  Encyclical  Letter  of  the  third  Gen- 
eral Council,  will  be  sufficient  for  our  purpose. 

I.  Whosoever  shall  presume  to  set  aside  the  decree  of  the 
holy  and  great  Synod  which  was  assembled  at  Nicaea  in  the 
presence  of  the  pious  and  most  religious  Sovereign  Constantine, 
concerning  the  holy  and  salutary  feast  of  Easter,  if  they  shall 
obstinately  persist  in  opposing  what  was  [then]  rightly  ordained, 
let  them  be  excommunicated  and  cast  out;  and  let  this  be  said 
concerning  the  laity.  But  if  any  of  those  who  preside  in  the 
Church,  whether  he  be  Bishop,  Presbyter,  or  Deacon,  shall  pre- 
sume, after  this  decree,  to  exercise  his  own  private  judgment,  to 
the  subversion  of  the  people  and  the  disturbance  of  the  Churches, 
by  observing  Easter  [at  the  same  time]  with  the  Jews,  the  holy 
Synod  decrees  that  he  shall  be  an  alien  from  the  Church  as  one 
who  not  only  heaps  sins  upon  himself,  but  who  is  also  the  cause 
of  destruction  and  subversion  to  many;  and  it  deposes  not  only 
such  persons  themselves  from  their  ministry,  but  those  also  who 
after  their  deposition  shall  presume  to  communicate  with  them. 
And  the  deposed  shall  be  deprived  even  of  that  external  honour 
of  which  the  holy  Canon  [i.  e.,  the  Sacerdotal  List]  and  God'S 
priesthood  partake. 

3.  If  any  Presbyter  or  Deacon  or  any  one  whatever  belonging 
to  the  Priesthood  shall  forsake  his  own  Parish  and  shall  depart, 
and  having  wholly  changed  his  residence  shall  set  himself  to 
remain  for  a  long  time  in  another  Parish,  let  him  no  longer 
officiate;  especially  if  his  own  Bishop  shall  summon  and  urge 
him  to  return  to  his  own  Parish,  and  Jie  shall  disobey.  And  if 
he  persist  in  his  disorder,  let  him  be  wholly  deposed  from  his 


36 

ministry,  so  that  no  further  room  be  left  for  his  restoration.  And 
if  another  Bishop  shall  receive  a  man  deposed  for  this  cause,  let 
him  be  punished  by  the  Common  Synod,  as  one  who  nullifies  the 
laws  of  the  Church. 

4.  If  any  Bishop  who  has  been  deposed  by  a  Synod,  or  any 
Presbyter  or  Deacon  who  has  been  deposed  by  his  Bishop,  shall 
presume  to  execute  any  part  of  the  ministry,  whether  it  be  a 
Bishop  according  to  his  former  custom,  or  a  Presbyter,  or  a 
Deacon,  it  shall  no  longer  be  lawful  to  him  to  have  a  pros- 
pect of  restoration,  nor  an  opportunity  of  making  his  defence  in 
another  Synod;  but  they  who  communicate  with  him  shall  all  be 
cast  out  of  the  Church,  and  particularly  if  they  have  presumed 
to  communicate  with  the  persons  before  mentioned,  knowing 
the  sentence  pronounced  against  them. 

5.  If  any  Presbyter  or  Deacon,  despising  his  own  Bishop, 
has  separated  himself  from  his  Church,  and  gathered  a  private 
assembly,  and  raised  an  altar,  and  if,  when  summoned  by  his 
Bishop,  he  shall  refuse  to  be  persuaded  and  will  not  obey,  even 
though  [his  Bishop]  summon  him  a  first  and  a  second  time,  let 
such  a  one  be  wholly  deposed  and  have  no  further  remedy,  neither 
be  capable  of  regaining  his  rank.  And  if  he  persist  in  troubling 
and  disturbing  the  Church,  let  him  be  corrected  as  a  seditious 
person  by  the  Civil  power. 

12.  If  any  Presbyter  or  Deacon  deposed  by  his  own  Bishop,  or 
any  Bishop  deposed  by  a  Synod,  shall  dare  to  trouble  the  ears 
of  the  Emperor  when  it  is  his  duty  to  submit  his  cause  to  a 
greater  Synod  of  Bishops,  and  to  refer  to  more  Bishops  the 
things  which  he  thinks  right,  and  to  abide  by  the  examination 
and  decision  made  by  them;  if,  despising  these,  he  shall  trouble 
the  Emperor,  he  shall  be  entitled  to  no  pardon,  neither  shall  he 
have  an  opportunity  of  defence  nor  any  hope  of  future  restora- 
tion. 

The  men  who  enacted  these  canons  seem  to  have  had 
no  doubt  of  their  power  to  deprive  ministers,  of  any 
rank,  of  their  right,  authority,  and  power  to  perform  the 
functions   of  their  ministry,  either  temporarily  or  perma- 


37 

nently.  In  these  canons  they  go  to  the  extremest  point 
possible,  even  cutting  off  all  hope  of  restoration  under 
any  circumstances.  But  the  Fathers  of  the  Council  at 
Ephesus,  A,D.  431,  are,  if  possible,  still  more  strenuous 
in  their  assertion  of  this  power. 

THE    THIRD    GENERAL    COUNCIL. 

In  their  Encyclical  Letter,  referring  to  those  bishops 
who  had  refused  to  meet  with  them,  and  who  had  held  a 
conciliabulum  apart,  they  use  this  strong  language. 

These  men,  having  no  privilege  of  ecclesiastical  communion 
on  the  ground  of  a  priestly  authority,  by  which  they  could  injure 
or  benefit  any  persons;  since  some  of  them  had  already  been 
deposed;  and  since,  from  their  refusing  to  join  in  our  decree 
against  Nestorius,  it  was  manifestly  evident  to  all  men  that  they 
were  all  promoting  the  opinions  of  Nestorius  and  Celestius;  the 
Holy  Synod,  by  one  common  decree,  deposed  them  all  from 
ecclesiastical  communion,  and  deprived  them  of  all  their  priestly 
power  by  which  they  might  injure  or  profit  any  persons. 

This  goes  to  the  root  of  the  matter.  The  bishops 
sitting  in  this  Council  certainly  knew  nothing  of  the 
theory  of  later  times.  They  evidently  regard  deposition 
as  effectually  depriving  the  deposed  of  power  as  well  as 
authority  to  minister  in  sacred  things ;  and  their  words 
may  properly  be  taken  as  interpretative  of  the  meaning 
of  deposition  everywhere. 

THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FIRST  FOUR  CENTURIES. 

The  citations  which  have  been  made  from  the  canons 
of  the  first  four  centuries  of  the  Church's  life  prove, 
conclusively,  that  in  these  ages  she  knew  nothing  of  the 
indelibility  of  orders  in  the  Augustinian  or  later  Roman 
sense — nothing  of  the  distinction  afterwards  made  be- 
tween invalid  acts  and  acts  uncanonical  but  valid. 


38 

The  latter  point  is  frankly  admitted  by  Hefele.  In 
his  comment  on  the  case  of  Maximus  the  Cynic,  under 
canon  4  of  the  second  General  Council,  he  says  : 

Maximus  has  been  already  repeatedly  spoken  of,  and  the 
manner  of  his  consecration  as  bishop  explained,  according  to 
which  the  Synod  was  perfectly  right  in  pronouncing  his  deposi- 
tion. The  distinction  between  invalid  {invalida,  axvpoi)  and 
irregular  {illicitd)  ordination  or  consecration  had  not  then  been 
established.  What  was  canonically  invalid  and  practically  un- 
recognised was  simply  designated  o^>ti'po?=invalid,  while  the 
later  canon  law  distinguished  accurately  sacramental  and  canon- 
ical invalidity.  [History  of  the  Councils^  Oxenham's  translation, 
T.  &  T.  Clark,  Edinburgh.] 

The  only  remarks  to  be  made  on  this  are  (i)  that  the 
Council  did  not  "  pronounce  his  deposition,"  as  we  have 
seen,  and  (2)  that  the  whole  citation  is  exquisitely 
Roman — such  a  beautiful  specimen  of  development ! 

Mr.  Gore  \Christian  Ministry,  Chap.  III.,  Sect.  III.], 
also  shows  that  the  early  Church  knew  nothing  of  this 
distinction  between  what  Hefele  calls  "  sacramental  and 
canonical  validity."  To  whom  shall  we  go — the  Primi- 
tive Church  or  "  the  later  canon  law  "? 

Bingham's  as  yet  unsurpassed  work  on  The  An- 
tiquities of  the  Christian  Church,  Book  XVII.,  Chap.  II., 
his  Scholastical  History  of  Lay  Baptism,  and  his  Disser- 
tation on  the  Eighth  Nicene  Canon,  may  be  consulted 
with  profit  on  the  whole  subject  of  the  indelibility  of 
orders,  though  it  is  necessary  to  make  allowance  for  a 
certain  false  assumption  heretofore  mentioned.  His 
statement  of  the  question  is  certainly  correct,  Lawrence, 
and  Waterland,  and  many  others  to  the  contrary,  not- 
withstanding. The  only  indelibility  of  orders  the  Primi- 
tive Church  recognised  was  this:  that  a  man  having  once 


39 

been  rightly  ordained  would  never  need  to  be  ordained 
again,  to  the  same  office,  any  more  than  he  would  need 
to  be  again  baptised.  If  he  should  be  deposed  he  lost 
the  power  bestowed  upon  him  at  his  ordination,  and  if 
he  were  restored  he  would  receive  it  again,  without  a  new 
ordination. 

The  sum  of  the  whole  matter  is  that  the  Roman 
theory  of  the  indelibility  of  orders,  though  formulated  by 
Augustine  early  in  the  fifth  century,  was  unknown  to  the 
Church  at  large  till  after  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  Its 
wide  acceptance  in  later  times  was  due  to  the  powerful 
influence  exercised  in  the  West  by  the  writings  of  the 
great  bishop  of  Hippo. 


III. 

TREATMENT   OF    SEPARATISTS    BY   THE 
EARLY   CHURCH. 

COMING  now  to  the  examination  of  the  question  as  to 
how  the  early  Church  healed  divisions,  we  will  take 
up  first,  for  convenience'  sake,  the  action  of  the  first  Gen- 
eral Council,  A.D.  325,  concerning  the  Novatians,  the 
Meletians,  and  the  Paulianists  or  Samosatenians. 

THE    NOVATIANS. 

This  sect  originated  with  Novatian,  a  presbyter  of 
the  Church  at  Rome,  A.D.  249.  He  desired  to  suc- 
ceed Fabianus  as  bishop,  but  Cornelius  was  elected  and 
duly  consecrated  to  the  vacant  see,  and  then  Novatian 
raised  a  party  of  his  own,  and  by  the  aid  of  Maximus,  a 
fellow-presbyter,  and  others,  secured  three  bishops  from  a 
distance  and  induced  them  to  give  him  consecration  sur- 
reptitiously. This  ordination  was  null  and  void,  and  was 
so  declared  by  Cornelius  and  a  local  council  which  he  sum- 
moned to  deal  with  the  matter.  Eusebius  [^Eccles,  Hist., 
Book  VI.,  Chap.  43,  Oxford  translation]  gives  an  account 
of  it,  and  also  quotes  letters  from  Cornelius  to  Fabius, 
Bishop  of  Antioch,  on  the  subject.  The  decree  of  the 
Council  he  gives  as  follows : 

That  Novatus,  indeed,  and  those  who  so  arrogantly  united 
with  him,  and  those  that  had  adopted  his  uncharitable  and  most 
inhuman  opinion,  these  they  considered  among  those  who  were 
alienated  from  the  Church  ;  but  that  those  who  had  incurred 
any  calamity  should  be  treated  and  healed  with  the  remedies  of 
repentance. 

It  seems  that  Novatian  used  as  a  pretext  for  his 
schism  the  claim  that  Cornelius  had  communicated  with 

40 


41 

some  who  had  sacrificed  during  a  persecution,  which  was 
denounced  as  wrong,  such  persons  not  being  capable  of 
restoration  but  deprived  of  all  hope  of  forgiveness  in  this 
life.  The  characteristic  difference  between  the  Novatians 
and  the  Catholic  Church  became  this  :  that  whereas  the 
Church  received  the  lapsed  again  to  communion,  after 
proof  of  repentance,  the  Novatians  excluded  them  for- 
ever. This  sect,  like  the  Donatists  at  a  later  period, 
rebaptised  Catholics  who  went  to  it  ;  but  it  is  a  signifi- 
cant fact  that  little  or  nothing  is  said  about  it.  [See 
Note  A.] 

In  one  of  the  quotations  by  Eusebius  from  Cornelius, 
he  speaks  of  the  ordination  of  Novatian  as  being  "a 
kind  of  shadowy  and  empty  imposition  of  hands."  He 
also  states  that  the  bishops  who  performed  the  act  were 
deposed  and  successors  appointed  to  them. 

Cyprian  speaks  of  Novatian  as  no  bishop.      He  says  : 

Cornelius  was  made  bishop  by  the  judgment  of  God  and  of 
His  Church,  by  the  testimony  of  almost  all  the  clergy,  by  the 
suffrage  of  the  people  who  were  then  present,  and  by  the  assem- 
bly of  ancient  priests  and  good  men,  when  no  one  had  been 
made  so  before  him,  when  the  place  of  Fabian,  that  is,  the  place 
of  Peter  and  the  degree  of  the  sacerdotal  throne  was  vacant; 
which  being  occupied  by  the  will  of  God,  and  established  by  the 
consent  of  all  of  us,  whosoever  now  wishes  to  become  a  bishop 
must  needs  be  made  from  without  ;  and  he  cannot  have  the 
ordination  of  the  Church  who  does  not  hold  the  unity  of  the 
Church.  Whoever  he  may  be,  although  greatly  boasting  about 
himself  and  claiming  very  much  for  himself,  he  is  profane,  he  is 
an  alien,  he  is  without.  And  as  after  the  first  there  cannot  be  a 
second,  whosoever  is  made  after  one  who  ought  to  be  alone  is 
not  second  to  him,  but  is  in  fact  none  at  all.     \Epistles  LI.,  8.]* 

*  In  another  place  Cyprian  speaks  of  another  deposed  bishop  as  follows  : 
"  Evaristus  from  being  a  bishop  has  now  not  remained  even  a  layman;  but  ban- 
ished from  the  see  and  from  the  people,  and  an  exile  from  the  Church  of  Christ,  he 


42 

All  this  is  in  strict  accord  with  the  canons  we  have  on 
the  subject,  and  expresses  most  accurately  the  mind  of 
the  Church  in  this  early  age. 

Notwithstanding  all  this,  Novatian  secured  a  consid- 
able  following,  and  left  behind  him  an  important  sect, 
which  was  still  strong  at  the  time  of  the  Nicene  Council. 
Of  course,  the  episcopal  ordination  of  Novatian  having 
been  void,  ipso  facto,  and  he  and  all  who  followed  him 
having  been  deposed,  there  were  no  ministers  of  any 
grade,  in  the  sect,  with  valid  orders.  The  Council  was 
well  aware  of  this,  and  must  have  had  it  in  mind  when 
action  was  taken  concerning  the  reconciliation.  Yet  the 
question  is  never  raised,  at  all,  any  more  than  that  con- 
cerning the  Novatian  practise  of  rebaptism.  In  view  of 
later  events  in  the  history  of  the  Church,  this  is  a  signifi- 
cant fact. 

THE    MELETIANS. 

Shortly  before  this  Council,  Meletius,  bishop  of  Ly- 
copolis,  took  advantage  of  the  absence  of  his  Metropoli- 
tan, the  bishop  of  Alexandria,  and  of  several  bishops 
who  were  in  prison  for  the  faith,  to  intrude  into  their 
jurisdiction  and  ordain  bishops.  These  ordinations  were 
canonically  void,  and  Meletius  and  his  adherents  were 
deposed  by  a  Council  at  Alexandria  on  account  of  them. 
Meletius  was  still  living  at  the  time  of  the  Nicene  Coun- 
cil, which  attempted  to  heal  the  schism.  In  this  sect,  as 
in  that  of  the  Novatians,  there  were,  so   far  as  appears, 

roves  about  far  and  wide  ihrough  other  provinces,  and,  himself  having  made  shipwreck 
of  truth  and  faith,  is  preparing  for  some  who  are  like  him  as  fearful  shipwrecks." 
[Epistles  XLVIII.,  i.] 

He  also  speaks  in  Epistle  LIV.  of  false,  pretended,  pseudo-bishops,  referring  to 
Fortunatus,  Felix,  .•\nd  others  schismatically  ordained.  And  it  is  to  be  observed  that 
Cornelius  and  others  to  whom  Cyprian  writes  do  not  find  fault  with  him  for  this 
language,  but  sustain  him. 


43 

no  ministers  with  valid  orders,  except  Meletius  himself, 
and  he  had  been  deposed.  [Hefele,  History  of  Councils, 
in  loc]  If  any  others  had  ever  received  valid  orders 
they  were  in  a  similar  position  to  Meletius. 

THE    PAULIANISTS. 

Paul  of  Samosata,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  was  the  founder 
of  this  sect,  which  was  in  heresy  as  well  as  schism.  Paul 
was  deposed  by  a  Council  in  his  own  city,  A.D.  269. 
{IbidP^  The  sect  survived  him,  but  was  not  strong  at 
the  time  of  the  Nicene  Council.  So  far  as  orders  were 
concerned  the  Paulianists,  or  Samosatenians,  were  in  the 
same  condition  as  the  other  two  sects  mentioned. 

ALL  THREE  EQUALLY  WITHOUT  ORDERS. 

These  three  sects,  then,  differing  as  widely  as  they 
did  in  other  particulars,  were  all  alike  in  this — that  none 
among  them  had  any  authority  or  power  to  minister  in 
holy  things,  any  who  had  ever  received  valid  orders  hav- 
ing been  deposed  from  their  ministry,  and  the  rest  never 
having  had  any. 

THE    ACTION    OF    THE    COUNCIL. 

As  to  the  action  of  the  Council  in  regard  to  the  No- 
vatians  and  Meletians  scholars  differ.  Some  hold  that 
the  ministers  of  both,  except  Meletius  himself,  were  ad- 
mitted to  the  ministry  of  the  Church  by  a  reconciliatory 
imposition  of  hands  ;  others  contend  that  this  imposition 
of  hands  was  a  new  ordination  ;  still  others  think  there 
was  a  difference  made  between  them,  the  Meletians  being 
ordained  but  the  Novatians  not.  Certainly  the  language 
of  the  Council  seems  to  indicate  a  difference  in  the  re- 
quirements made  of  these  two  sects,  as  we  shall  now  see. 

The  Canon  concerning  the  Novatians  reads  thus : 


44 

Concerning  those  who  call  themselves  Cathari,  if  they  come 
over  to  the  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church,  the  Great  and  Holy- 
Synod  decrees  that  they  who  are  ordained  shall  continue  as 
they  are  in  the  Clergy.  But  it  is  before  all  things  necessary 
that  they  should  profess  in  writing  that  they  will  observe  and 
follow  the  decrees  of  the  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church;  in  par- 
ticular that  they  will  communicate  with  persons  who  have  been 
twice  married,  and  with  those  who  having  lapsed  in  persecution 
have  had  a  period  [of  penance]  laid  upon  them,  and  a  time  of 
restoration  [fixed]  ;  and  in  general  that  they  will  follow  the  de- 
crees of  the  Catholic  Church.  Wheresoever,  then,  whether  in 
villages  or  in  cities,  all  of  the  ordained  are  found  to  be  of  these 
only,  let  them  remain  in  the  clergy,  and  in  the  same  rank  in 
which  they  are  found.  But  if  they  come  over  where  there  is  a 
Presbyter  or  Bishop  of  the  Catholic  Church,  it  is  manifest  that 
the  Bishop  of  the  Church  must  have  the  Bishop's  dignity  ;  and 
he  who  is  named  Bishop  by  those  who  are  called  Cathari  shall 
have  the  rank  of  Presbyter,  unless  it  shall  seem  fit  to  the  Bishop 
to  admit  him  to  partake  in  the  honour  of  the  episcopal  name. 
Or,  if  this  should  not  be  satisfactory,  then  shall  the  Bishop  pro- 
vide for  him  a  place  as  chor-episcopus,  or  Presbyter,  in  order 
that  he  may  evidently  be  seen  to  be  one  of  the  clergy,  and  that 
there  may  not  be  two  Bishops  in  one  city.     [Canon  VIII.] 

The  action  in  relation  to  the  Meletians  we  learn  from 
the  Synodical  Letter  of  the  Council,  which  relates  it  as 
follows  : 

The  Holy  Synod,  then,  being  disposed  to  deal  gently  with 
Meletius  (for  in  strict  justice  he  deserves  no  leniency),  decreed 
that  he  should  remain  in  his  own  city,  but  have  no  authority 
either  to  make  appointments,  or  to  administer  affairs,  or  to 
ordain;  and  that  he  should  not  appear  in  any  other  city,  or 
district  for  this  purpose,  but  should  enjoy  the  bare  title  of  his 
rank;  but  that  those  who  have  been  placed  by  him,  after  they 
have  been  confirmed  by  a  more  sacred  appointment,  shall  on 
these  conditions  be  admitted  to  communion :  that  they  shall 
both    have  their  rank  and  the  right  to  oflficiate,  but  that  they 


45 

shall  be  altogether  the  inferiors  of  all  those  who  are  enrolled  in 
any  Church  or  Parish,  and  have  been  appointed  by  our  most 
honourable  colleague,  Alexander. 

There  are  some  further  directions  in  the  matter,  but 
the  foregoing  is  all  that  is  needed  for  our  purpose. 

Comparing  the  language  in  these  two  extracts,  one 
cannot  but  note  a  difference  in  tone,  which  seems  to 
indicate  a  like  difference  in  requirement,  not  to  speak  of 
the  language  itself.  When  we  put  them  beside  the  canon 
dealing  with  the  Paulianists,  we  find  a  seeming  gradation 
which  adds  to  the  force  of  this  indication.  This  canon 
reads  as  follows : 

Concerning  the  Paulianists  who  have  returned  to  the  Catholic 
Church,  it  has  been  decreed  that  they  must  by  all  means  be 
rebaptized;  and  if  any  of  them  who  in  past  time  have  been  num- 
bered among  their  Clergy  should  be  found  blameless  and  without 
reproach,  let  them  be  rebaptized  and  ordained  by  the  Bishop  of 
the  Catholic  Church;  but  if  the  examination  should  discover 
them  to  be  unfit,  they  ought  to  be  deposed.     [Canon  XIX.] 

The  rest  of  the  canon  treats  of  the  inferior  clergy,  as 
those  below  the  rank  of  deacon  were  called. 

Hefele's  translator,  in  accordance  with  the  view  taken 
by  his  author,  translates  the  early  part  of  the  canon  rela- 
ting to  the  Novatians,  or  Cathari,  thus  : 

They  must  submit  to  imposition  of  hands,  and  they  may  then 
remain  among  the  Clergy. 

The  other  translation,  which  is  according  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  Beveridge  and  Van  Espen,  following  Rufinus, 
Zonaras,  and  Balsamon,  seems  to  accord  best  with  the 
general  tone  of  the  canon,  and  to  be  preferable.  To 
this  may  be  added  the  interpretation  of  the  Synod  of 
Riez,  which  accords  with  this  view,  as  we  shall  see  when 
we  come  to  it.     [See  page  52.] 


46 


THE    ALTERNATIVES. 


If  the  clergy  of  all  these  sects  were  required  to  be 
reordained,  it  proves  only  that  the  Council  rigidly  applied 
the  existing  Canon  law,  sustaining  the  action  previously 
taken  in  the  respective  cases. 

If  the  ministers  of  either  were  not  so  required,  it 
follows  that  the  Council  decreed  the  admission  of j  these 
men  to  the  ministry  of  the  Church  without  the  usual 
ordination.  That  they  were  not  admitted  on  the  plea  of 
a  former  valid  ordination  is  evident  from  what  we  have 
heretofore  seen,  and  that  their  having  what  we  now  term 
"episcopal  ordination"  had  no  influence,  we  shall  see 
farther  on. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  attempt  to  settle  here  a  ques- 
tion upon  which  there  is  so  much  difference  of  opinion, 
as,  whatever  may  have  been  the  fact  in  this  case,  we  shall 
find  action  in  later  cases  about  which  there  can  be  no 
dispute.  It  is  sufficient  to  have  brought  out  the  result  of 
the  action  of  the  Nicene  Council  on  both  hypotheses,  and 
this  should  be  borne  in  mind.     [See  Note  B.]  j 

MAXIMUS    THE    CYNIC. 

At  Constantinople,  A.D.  380,  a  case  occurred  pre- 
cisely analogous  to  that  of  Novatian.  The  see  was 
occupied  by  Gregory  of  Nazianzen  at  this  time,  but 
Maximus  the  Cynic  procured  himself  to  be  ordained  to 
the  episcopate,  in  a  clandestine  manner,  hoping  to  sup- 
plant Gregory  The  following  year  the  second  General 
Council  met  here,  and  with  regard  to  Maximus  it  was 
declared,  as  we  have  seen  from  the  fourth  canon,  quoted 
above  (page  32),  that  he  never  was  a  bishop,  and  that  all 
his  ordinations  were  void.  As  nothing  is  said  concerning 
what  should  be  done  about  admitting  to  the  ministry  of 


47 

the  Church  the  men  whom  he  had  ordained,  it  is  to  be 
presumed  that  they  were  left  to  the  operation  of  the  law 
ordinarily  applied  to  such  cases,  viz.,  that,  unless  excom- 
municated, they  communed  as  laymen  and  were  incapable 
of  orders.  In  the  case  of  Maximus  an  "  episcopal  ordina- 
tion "  is  expressly  repudiated. 

THE  DONATISTS. 

In  the  year  312  a  schism  occurredatCarthage;  Cecilian 
being  ordained  to  this  see  upon  the  death  of  Mensurius, 
and  Majorinus  being  ordained  after,  for  the  same  see,  by 
the  Numidian  bishops,  who  pretended  that  because  they 
had  not  been  consulted,  and  for  other  reasons,  Cecilian 
had  no  right  to  the  episcopate.  This  schism  involved 
the  whole  of  Africa,  so  that  in  every  town  of  importance 
there  were  soon  two  bishops,  one  of  each  party. 

The  case  came  before  a  Council  at  Rome,  the  follow- 
ing year,  and  before  the  Council  of  Aries  in  314,  and  in 
both  Cecilian  was  sustained  and  the  opposite  party  con- 
demned. According  to  Hefele,  the  former  synod,  after 
condemning  Donatus,  the  successor  of  Majorinus,  ordered 
that  if  the  other  bishops  of  the  sect  would  return  to  the 
unity  of  the  Church,  they  might  retain  their  thrones,  and 
that  in  every  place  where  there  was  a  bishop  of  both 
parties  the  one  who  had  been  longest  ordained  should 
remain  at  the  head  of  the  Church,  and  the  other  should 
be  set  over  another  diocese.  \Hist,  of  the  Councils, 
in  loc]  The  same  authority  tells  us  that  while  the  com- 
plete acts  of  the  Council  of  Aries  have  not  come  down 
to  us,  it  is  evident  from  what  we  have  of  them  that 
Cecilian  was  acquitted  and  the  Donatists  condemned; 
and  that  from  a  letter  written  by  the  African  bishops  a 
century  later,  it  seems  that  this  Council  consented  that 


48 

Every  Donatist  Bishop  who  should  become  reconciled  to 
the  Church  should  alternately  exercise  the  episcopal  jurisdiction 
with  the  Catholic  bishop;  that  if  either  of  the  two  died  the  sur- 
vivor should  be  his  successor;  but  in  the  case  in  which  a  Church 
did  not  wish  to  have  two  bishops,  both  were  to  resign  and  a  new 
one  was  to  be  elected.     [Idid.\ 

This  schism  continued  a  very  long  time,  notwithstand- 
ing this  effort  to  put  a  stop  to  it  by  such  unprecedented 
concessions,  and  we  get  glimpses  of  it,  and  the  trouble  it 
occasioned,  from  time  to  time  through  the  fourth  century. 
Its  claim  was  that  it  was  the  Catholic  Church,  all  the  rest 
having  forfeited  and  lost  their  character  through  ordina- 
tion by  traditors,  i.  e.,  those  who  had  given  up  the  sacred 
books  in  time  of  persecution.  The  Donatists  rebaptised 
all  Catholics  who  went  to  them,  as  the  Novatians 
also  did,  and  it  was  this  practise  which  was  the  main 
subject  of  Augustine's  contention  with  them. 

That  some  severer  measures  than  those  of  the  Coun- 
cils above  mentioned  were  taken  with  the  Donatists  is 
evident  from  a  canon  of  the  Council  of  Hippo,  A.D. 
393,  which  reads  as  follows  : 

The  old  rule  of  the  Councils,  that  no  Donatist  ecclesiastic 
shall  be  received  into  the  Church  otherwise  than  among  the 
laity,  remains  in  force,  except  as  regards  those  who  have  never 
rebaptized,  or  those  who  desire  to  join  the  Church  with  their 
congregations  (that  is,  such  shall  retain  their  clerical  office). 
But  the  transmarine  Church  shall  be  consulted  on  this  point,  as 
also  whether  the  children  of  Donatists,  who  have  received 
Donatist  baptism,  not  of  their  own  free  will  but  at  the  desire  of 
their  parents,  are  to  be  excluded  from  being  accepted  for  service 
at  the  altar,  on  account  of  the  error  of  their  parents.  \Ibid; 
in  loc] 

The  old  rule  here  referred  to  is  certainly  not  that  of 
the  earliest  Councils  on   the   Donatist  schism,  which,  as 


49 

we  have  seen,  dealt  very  mildly  with  these  schismatics. 
It  was  probably  established  afterwards,  by  Councils  of 
which  we  have  no  record  ;  unless  we  are  to  understand 
the  reference  to  be  to  the  general  rule  for  the  reception 
of  schismatics. 

From  the  acts  of  the  fifth  Carthaginian  Council,  A.D. 
401,  we  learn  that  the  province  of  Africa  was  then  suffer- 
ing for  want  of  clergy,  caused  probably  by  the  Donatist 
schism ;  and  canon  i  orders  that 

Children  of  Donatists  may,  as  has  been  already  declared,  be 
ordained  after  joining  the  Church. 

Another  Synod  held  at  the  same  place  about  three 
months  later,  orders,  in  its  first  canon,  that  the  Donatists 
should  be  dealt  with  gently.  Canon  2  of  this  Synod  is 
given  by  Hefele  as  follows  : 

Donatist  clergy  shall,  if  necessary  for  the  restoration  of  peace 
in  the  Church,  retain  their  position,  although  a  Council  of  the 
Transmarine  Bishops  has  given  a  stricter  decision. 

The  eighth  Carthaginian  Synod,  A.D.  403,  took  order 
for  the  holding  of  communication  with  the  Donatists, 
with  a  view  to  the  settlement  of  differences,  but  a  Synod 
held  at  the  same  place  the  next  year  testifies  that  the 
Donatists  had  declined  to  enter  into  communication. 

The  Emperor  had  in  the  meantime  issued  an  imperial 
decree  calling  on  the  Donatists  to  return  to  the  unity  of 
the  Church. 

The  eleventh  of  this  series  of  Synods,  held  A.D.  407, 
decreed,  in  its  fifth  canon  : 

Communities  which  on  their  return  from  the  sect  of  the 
Donatists  had  bishops  of  their  own,  may  keep  them  without 
further  permission;  but  after  the  death  of  their  former  bishop 
they  may  give  up  forming  a  diocese  of  their  own,  and  may  join 


50 

another  diocese.  Those  bishops  who  before  the  publication  of 
the  imperial  edict  of  union,  have  brought  back  Donatist  com- 
munities to  the  Church  may  henceforth  keep  them;  but  after  the 
publication  of  this  law  all  communities,  whether  converted  or 
unconverted,  shall  be  claimed  by  the  bishops  of  the  place  to 
which  they  formerly,  while  still  heretics  (de  jure),  belonged. 

Another  Synod  of  Carthage,  A.D.  418,  enacted  canons 
on  the  same  subject.  ("he  ninth  recites  the  latter  part 
of  the  canon  just  above  quoted,  and  modifies  it  some- 
what.     Following  canons  read  thus  : 

10.  If  the  Donatist  bishop  has  himself  become  Catholic,  the 
two  bishops  (he  and  the  Catholic  one)  shall  divide  equally  be- 
tween them  the  two  communities  now  united,  so  that  one  portion 
of  the  towns  shall  belong  to  one,  and  the  other  to  the  other 
bishop,  etc. 

11.  If,  after  the  publication  of  this  edict,  a  bishop  has  brought 
back  a  place  to  Catholic  unity,  and  has  held  undisputed  jurisdic- 
tion over  it  for  three  years,  it  may  not  be  taken  away  from  him. 
But  if  a  Donatist  bishop  is  converted,  no  disadvantage  shall 
accrue  to  him  from  this  arrangement,  but  for  three  years  after  his 
conversion  he  has  the  right  of  demanding  back  those  places 
which  belonged  to  his  See. 

We  are  indebted  to  Hefele  for  all  these  canons,  in  his 
treatment  of  the  several  Synods  in  the  work  before 
referred  to. 

Now  the  Donatists  were  in  very  much  the  same  posi- 
tion, originally,  as  were  the  Novatiansand  the  Meletians. 
Their  bishops  were  ordained  to  sees  already  canonically 
filled,  and  the  ordinations  were  in  violation  of  the  canons 
and  in  opposition  to  the  authority  of  the  Church.  It 
would  have  been  perfectly  right  for  the  Church  to  have 
enforced  the  law  against  them  to  the  uttermost,  or  to 
have  required  their  clergy  to  be  reordained  by  the  Catho- 


51 

lie  bishops.  Instead  of  this,  however,  we  find  her 
dealing  with  them  much  more  leniently.  She  tried  some 
severity,  at  one  period,  as  we  learn  from  the  canon  of 
Hippo,  but  at  other  times  she  was  exceedingly  gentle 
with  them,  and  at  last  seems  to  have  offered  them  advan- 
tages over  her  own  faithful  ones.  This  doubtless  seemed 
necessary  to  "  the  restoration  of  peace  in  the  Church," 
as  the  sixth  Synod  phrases  it,  and  therefore  it  was  done. 
Augustine  was  a  very  prominent  figure  in  the  later 
controversy  with  this  sect,  and  replying  to  a  taunt  of 
theirs  concerning  this  easy  reception  of  their  clergy,  they 
being  from  the  Catholic  point  of  view  so  wicked,  he  tells 
them: 

This  would  not  be  the  case,  as,  indeed,  in  simple  truth,  we 
must  confess  it  should  not  be  the  case,  were  it  not  that  the  evil 
is  cured  by  the  compensating  power  of  peace  itself.  [Correction 
of  the  Donatists,  Chap.  X.,  Clark's  edition  Ante-Nicene  Christian 
Library  !\ 

In  the  case  of  the  Donatists,  then,  it  is  evident  that 
when  their  clergy  were  admitted  at  all  to  the  ministry  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  it  was  without  her  usual  form  of 
ordination,  and  without  any  laying  on  of  hands  in  token 
of  reconciliation.  So  far  as  we  are  informed  no  ceremony 
at  all  was  prescribed  for  their  reception,  and  it  seems 
that  no  more  was  required  of  them  than  a  simple  notice 
of  their  desire  and  intention  to  conform  to  the  Church. 
There  is  no  reference,  in  all  these  proceedings,  to  their 
having  had  "  episcopal  ordination." 

THE    MASSALIANS. 

At  a  Synod  at  Sida,  in  Pamphylia,  A.D.  389  or  390, 
a  sect  called  Massalians  or  Euchites  was  excommunicated, 
and  their  heresy  condemned.     The   condemnation    was 


52 

repeated  in  a  Synod  at  Constantinople,  A.D.  426.  The 
third  General  Council,  five  years  later,  decreed  that 
Massalian  clerics  who  would  anathematise  their  heresy 
might  remain  among  the  clergy,  and  laymen  so  doing 
migrht  be  admitted  to  communion.  As  in  the  case  of  the 
Donatists,  nothing  seems  to  have  been  required  in  the 
way  of  imposition  of  hands.  [Hefele,  Hist,  of  Cou7icilSy 
in  loc] 

THE    SYNOD    OF     RIEZ. 

In  the  year  439,  Armentarius  was  uncanonically  or- 
dained to  the  see  of  Embrun,  by  two  bishops,  and  without 
the  consent  of  Hilary  of  Aries,  the  Metropolitan.  A 
Synod  was  held  at  Riez,  under  the  presidency  of  Hilary, 
with  reference  to  this  affair,  and  it  passed  canons  as 
follows: 

2.  The  ordination  of  Armentarius  is  void  {irrita)  and  a  fresh 
appointment  is  to  be  made  to  the  See  of  Embrun. 

3.  In  reference  to  the  fact  that  the  Nicene  Council  (canon  8) 
treats  schismatics  much  more  gently  than  heretics,  it  is  allowed 
that  a  bishop  who  is  so  inclined  may  grant  to  Armentarius  a 
church  in  his  diocese  (but  outside  the  ^^xow\\\zQ.  Alpina  Maritwid) 
in  which  he  may  be  chor-episcopus.  But  he  must  never  offer  the 
sacrifice  in  towns  or  in  the  absence  of  the  bishop,  or  ordain  any 
cleric,  or,  generally,  discharge  any  episcopal  function  in  the 
Church  which  is  granted  to  him,  only  in  his  own  church  he  may 
confirm  the  newly  baptized. 

4.  Of  those  whom  he  has  ordained  to  be  clerics,  such  as  have 
been  already  excommunicated  shall  be  deposed;  but  those  who 
are  of  good  reputation  may  either  be  retained  by  the  future 
bishop  of  Embrun  or  transferred  to  Armentarius.     \Ibid^ 

Here  again  we  find  men  admitted,  without  ordination, 
to  the  ministry  of  the  Church,  they  having  no  orders  at 
all;  for  it  is  manifest  that  if  the  ordination  of  Armen- 


I 


53 

tarius  was  void,  he  could  not  give  orders.  Language  is 
used  here,  as  we  have  seen  elsewhere,  very  loosely,  de- 
position being  spoken  of  in  cases  where  there  was  really 
nothing  to  depose  from. 

ARIANS    AND    MACEDONIANS. 

That  many  Arian  clerics,  when  they  were  received 
into  the  Church,  were  admitted  to  the  ministry  without 
reordination,  the  history  of  the  Arian  period  proves  be- 
yond question  ;  though  in  many  cases  the  canons  were 
strictly  applied,  and  these  clerics  were  received  only  to 
lay  communion  or  were  reordained. 

That  the  Macedonian  Clergy  were  received  into  the 
communion  of  the  Church  by  Liberius,  of  Rome,  without 
reordination,  is  evident  from  his  letter  to  them,  given  by 
Socrates  \Eccles.  Hist.,  Book  VI.,  Chap.  XII.,  Oxford 
translation],  and  from  the  statements  of  the  historian 
in  connection  therewith.  The  chapter  referred  to  termi- 
nates as  follows : 

That  the  Macedonians  by  sending  legates  to  Liberius  were 
admitted  to  communion  by  him,  and  professed  the  Nicene  Creed, 
is  attested  by  Sabinus  himself,  in  his  Collection  of  Synodic  Trans- 
actions. 

Finally,  it  is  stated  by  Bingham  in  his  Antiquities  of 
the  Christian  Church,  Book  IV.,  Chap.  VII.,  Sect.  8,  that 

Anisius,  bishop  of  Thessalonica,  with  a  Council  of  his  provin- 
cial bishops,  agreed  to  receive  those  whom  Bonosus,  an  heretical 
bishop  of  Macedonia,  had  ordained,  that  they  might  not  continue 
to  strengthen  his  party,  and  thereby  bring  no  small  damage  on 
the  Church. 

THE    CONCLUSION. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  action  of  the  Nicene 
Council    in    relation    to  the    Novatians   and    Meletians, 


54 

therefore,  we  have  in  these  later  cases  indisputable  evi- 
dence that  the  Church  received  into  her  ministry,  without 
reordination,  bishops  and  clergy  of  sects  in  which,  accord- 
ing to  her  own  laws  and  declarations,  there  were  no 
valid  orders  ;  and  that  no  account,  whatever,  is  made,  in 
any  case,  of  "episcopal  ordination,"  the  term  never  being 
used  nor  the  fact  referred  to. 


IV. 

THE    PRINCIPLE     UNDERLYING    THE 

ACTION    OF   THE    COUNCILS. 

THE  question  now  is:    Upon  what  principle  are  we  to 
account    for  the   action   of   the   Councils   in   these 
matters  ? 

THE   PREVAILING  THEORY. 

This  is,  that  these  sects  having  originated  with  bish- 
ops, and  therefore  having  "  episcopal  ordination,"  the 
Church  recognised  the  validity  of  their  orders,  and  when 
she  received  their  clerics  into  her  ministry,  without  reor- 
dination,  she  condoned  the  irregularity  of  their  ordina- 
tion. 

We  have  seen  that  the  facts  do  not  sustain  this 
theory.  The  very  first  step  in  its  application  to  the 
cases  we  have  considered,  demonstrates  its  insufficiency. 

EPISCOPAL   ORDINATIONS   INVALID. 

Novatian  and  Maximus  the  Cynic  were  each  ordained 
to  their  supposed  episcopates  by  bishops — the  former  by 
three,  and  the  latter  by  seven, — yet  the  ordinations  were 
declared  to  be  absolutely  void;  that  of  Maximus  being 
so  declared  by  a  General  Council,  which  asserted  most 
positively  that  he  was  not  made  a  bishop  by  that  ordina- 
tion. 

Again  Majorinus,  the  first  bishop  of  the  Donatists, 
was  ordained  to  the  episcopate  by  bishops,  and  not  fewer 
than  the  canonical  number,  yet  his  ordination  was  void, 
under  the  law  of  the  Church,  and  was  so  declared  by  the 
Councils  at  Rome  and  Aries.  Neither  he  or  any  others 
of  his  sect  had  valid  orders,  therefore,  and  when  Donatist 
clerics  were  received   into  the  Church,  without  reordina- 

55 


56 

tion,  it  was  not  on  the  ground  that  they  had  "  episcopal 
ordination  " — though  Augustine  might  consistently  have 
advanced  this  plea — ,  but  it  was  for  the  sake  of  peace,  and 
because  this  seemed  the  readiest  and  most  promising 
way  for  the  healing  of  the  schism. 

Those  ordained  by  Paul  of  Samosata'  had  "  episcopal 
ordination";  yet  the  first  General  Council  ignored  it  and 
required  them  to  be  ordained  anew.  Had  the  prevailing 
theory  of  to-day  been  recognised  as  the  true  one,  the 
reordination  of  these  clerics  would  not  have  been  thought 
of,  for,  according  to  the  views  then  as  now  held,  such  a 
proceeding  would  have  been  deemed  sacrilege. 

Whatever  principle,  then,  governed  the  Churches  in 
the  reception,  without  reordination,  of  schismatical  and 
heretical  clergy,  it  certainly  is  not  to  be  found  in  this 
theory.  Yet,  notwithstanding  the  clearness  of  this  fact, 
mediaeval  and  modern  theologians  almost  universally 
assume  this  to  be  the  true  theory.  It  is  this  assumption 
that  leads  Morinus  to  say: 

What  is  it  to  track  the  controversy  [on  the  validity  of  hereti- 
cal or  schismatical  or  simoniacal  ordinations]  but  to  exhibit 
bishops  against  bishops,  councils  against  councils,  pontiffs  against 
pontiffs,  waging  a  Cadmeian  war  ?  [Gore,  CJiristian  Mmisiry, 
p.  195.] 

An  edifying  spectacle  truly  !  One  cannot  but  think 
of  our  Lord's  words: 

If  a  kingdom  be  divided  against  itself,  that  kingdom  cannot 
stand.     [St.  Mark  III.,  24.] 

When  we  consider  what  the  Church  is,  we  cannot  for 
a  moment  admit  that  she  speaks  with  so  uncertain  a 
voice  upon  a  subject  of  such  great  moment.  The  Church 
is  Christ  [I.  Corinthians  XII.,  12],  and  He  it  is  who  acts 


57 

through  His  body,  and  preserves  it  from  destruction  by 
the  human  element  inseparable  from  it.  We  may  be 
sure,  therefore,  that  there  is  some  deeper  principle  than 
that  of  the  false  theory  above  referred  to,  upon  which 
the  Church's  action  in  this  most  important  matter  may 
be  accounted  for,  and  which  will  remove  the  difficulty 
which  led  Morinus  to  give  utterance  to  such  language  as 
that  above  quoted  from  him. 

THIS    THEORY    ONLY     PARTIALLY    ACCEPTED. 

If  it  be  claimed  that  the  whole  Church  has  accepted 
and  acted  upon  this  theory,  it  must  be  replied  that  this 
is  not  true.      Mr.  Gore  testifies  to  this  fact.     He  says  : 

The  Eastern  Church  has,  in  fact,  never  got  beyond  the  posi- 
tion that  the  Church  has  power  to  ratify  in  any  particular  case, 
or  set  of  cases,  ordinations  which  in  the  West  would  be  called 
per  se  vdilid  but  uncanonical.  {Christian  Ministry,  p.  195.  See 
note  from  Morinus.] 

We  shall  see  farther  on  that  this  notion  attributed  to 
the  Eastern  Church  is  untenable,  and  embodies  no  prin- 
ciple sufficient  to  account  for  the  facts  of  history. 

THIS    THEORY  IN    THE    WESTERN    CHURCHES. 

But  even  if  it  were  true  that  this  theory  had  appar- 
ently been  accepted  and  acted  on  by  the  whole  Church, 
this  would  not  prove  it  to  be  true.  There  are  several 
things  which  seem  to  have  been  held  by  the  whole 
Church,  for  a  time,  which  are  not  so  accepted  to-day. 
The  appeal  to  antiquity  is  always  legitimate,  and  the 
verdict  of  antiquity  is  always  authoritative  and  final  as 
to  what  is  Catholic.  The  verdict  in  this  case  is  adverse, 
as  we  have  seen  ;  and  even  in  the  Western  Churches  this 
theory  has  prevailed  only  for  six  hundred  years,  as  Grue- 
ber  \Holy  Order,  p.  141]  shows  from  Morinus. 


58 

FALSE    THEORIES    AND    RIGHT    ACTS. 

Further,  it  may  be  said  that  the  doing  of  a  right 
thing  upon  a  wrong  theory  affects  neither  the  propriety 
of  the  act  nor  the  character  of  the  theory.  The  act  is 
rightly  done,  but  the  theory  is  as  false  as  ever.  Illustra- 
tions of  this  are  not  far  to  seek. 

The  reception  of  a  Donatist  bishop,  by  Augustine,  on 
his  theory  of  the  indelibility  of  orders,  for  instance,  would 
have  been  a  right  act,  and  perfectly  valid  and  effectual, 
notwithstanding  the  falsity  of  Augustine's  theory  ;  which 
would  still  be  false  all  the  same. 

But  we  may  find  an  illustration  nearer  home.  The 
reception  of  a  Roman  cleric  into  our  ministry,  without  re- 
ordination,  on  the  theory  that  because  he  had  what  we  call 
"  episcopal  ordination,"  therefore  his  orders  are  valid,  is 
a  right  reception,  and  is  valid  and  effectual  to  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  end  in  view ;  though  the  theory,  as  we 
have  seen,  is  false,  and  Romish  orders  in  this  country,  as 
we  shall  see  farther  on,  are  null  and  void. 

RETROSPECTIVE     VALIDITY. 

Another  theory,  held  by  some,  is  that  the  Church's 
reception  of  orders  previously  invalid,  or  only  qtiasi- 
valid  gives  them  a  retrospective  validity.  This  is  the 
theory  with  which  Mr.  Gore  credits  the  Eastern  Church. 
A  little  reflection  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  convince  one 
that  this  is  untenable.  When  the  ordination  took  place 
it  was  either  valid  or  invalid  ;  it  could  not  have  been 
partially  one  and  partially  the  other.  Now,  even  the 
Church  cannot  change  the  past.  Her  action  in  receiving 
into  her  ministry  men  having  previously  received  an  in- 
valid ordination,  could  not  possibly  have  any  ex  post  facto 
operation.       The  character    of    the    original    ordination 


59 

could  not  possibly  be  changed  by  this  reception,  but 
must,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  remain  always  the 
same.  The  utmost  the  Church  could  do  in  such  a  case, 
would  be  to  act  for  the  present  and  the  future. 

"FIERI    NGN    DEBET,   SED    FACTUM     VALET." 

The  use  of  this  legal  maxim,  in  this  connection,  is 
simply  assuming  the  very  point  in  dispute.  The  question 
is  not  whether  a  man  received  imposition  of  hands  from 
three  or  more  bishops  who  intended  to  make  him  a  bishop 
in  the  Catholic  Church — to  take  the  strongest  case — , 
but  whether  such  an  imposition  of  hands,  performed  in 
disobedience  to  the  Church's  law  and  in  opposition  to 
her  authority,  did  make  the  man  a  bishop.  It  is  freely 
granted  that  the  act  was  done,  but  the  question  is  as  to 
the  EFFECT  of  the  act.  That  the  early  Church  regarded 
such  an  act,  so  performed,  as  of  no  effect,  so  far  as  con- 
ferring the  episcopate  was  concerned,  has  been  sufficiently 
proved. 

It  may  be  well,  however,  to  illustrate  this  point  still 
further.  The  legal  application  of  the  maxim  above  cited 
is  only  a  fictitious  one  after  all.  For  instance,  a  man  has 
an  agent  who  is  empowered  to  sell  a  piece  of  property. 
He  sells  it,  and  whether  his  principal  be  satisfied  or  not, 
the  act  is  his  act  and  he  is  powerless  to  change  it,  under 
ordinary  circumstances.  But  suppose  some  other  man, 
who  is  not  authorised  to  sell  this  property,  sells  it,  what 
is  the  transaction  worth  ?  Nothing.  If  the  owner, 
learning  of  this  unauthorised  sale,  should  consider  it  to 
his  advantage  to  sell  on  the  terms  that  were  made,  and 
should  go  and  agree  to  the  sale,  and  authorise  this  before 
unauthorised  man  to  complete  it,  does  this  change  the 
character  of  the  original  act  ?     Manifestly  not.     This  act 


60 

cannot  strictly  be  said  to  be  validated  by  the  subsequent 
act  of  the  owner,  though  it  might  be  said  so  by  way  of  a 
legal  fiction.  The  truth  is  that  the  owner  does,  himself, 
really  make  the  whole  transaction,  when  he  agrees  to  do 
the  same  thing  which  had  been  proposed  by  the  pretended 
agent  ;  and  the  act  of  this  man  remains  absolutely  the 
same  in  character  and  force — unauthorised  and  invalid. 

So,  if  the  Church  receives  into  her  ministry,  without 
reordination,  men  who  have  been  pretendedly  ordained 
in  disobedience  to  her  laws  and  in  opposition  to  her 
authority,  by  persons  whom  she  has  not  authorised  for 
such  action,  her  reception  of  them  does  not  change  the 
original  character  of  that  pretended  ordination,  or  give 
any  validity  to  it.  It  remains  always  the  same,  unauthor- 
ised and  invalid  ;  and  the  truth  is  that  by  her  reception 
of  these  men  to  her  ministry,  by  whatever  method  or 
with  no  method,  the  Church  bestows  upon  them  the  gifts 
usually  bestowed  in  ordination  through  the  laying  on 
of  the  bishop's  hands,  and  such  bestowal  is  the  one  valid 
and  effectual  authorisation  for  the  functions  of  their 
ministry. 

AN    ARGUMENTUM    AD     HOMINEM. 

Should  it  be  said  by  any  who  hold  the  prevailing 
theories  on  this  subject  that  the  Church  cannot  give 
ministerial  authority  except  through  the  usual  form  of 
ordination,  it  may  be  sufficient  to  point  to  the  historical 
facts  which  have  been  here  brought  forward,  and  to  say  : 
Fieri  non  debet,  sed  Jactum  valet.  If  this  maxim  be 
applied  to  the  unauthorised  act  of  an  individual,  its 
application  can  scarcely  be  denied  to  an  act  of  the 
Church,  which  has  authority. 

In  the  theories  we  have  examined  there  is  evidently 


61 

no  sufficient  principle  to  account  for  the  historical  facts. 
The  principle  we  are  seeking  lies  deeper,  for  it  must 
meet  a// the  requirements  of  the  situation,  which  these 
theories  do  not. 

THE    TRUE    PRINCIPLE, 

What,  then,  is  the  true  principle  ? 

Is  it  not  that  which  appears  on  the  very  surface  of 
the  Church's  history  ?  Have  we  not  seen  that  each  case, 
as  it  came  up,  was  treated  according  to  its  own  peculiar 
circumstances  ;  the  Churches  and  Councils  doing  what 
they  deemed  most  expedient  in  the  premises  ?  Did  they 
not  receive  the  clerics  of  heretical  or  schismatical  bodies 
either  to  lay  communion,  or  to  the  Catholic  ministry, 
with  or  without  reordination,  or  cut  them  off  by  excom- 
munication, according  as  seemed  wise  and  good  ? 

Is  not  the  one  great  all-sufficient  principle  underlying, 
accounting  for,  and  justifying  all  this  action  that  of  the 

PLENARY  AUTHORITY  AND  POWER  OF  THE  ChURCH  ? 

If  it  be  not,  where  shall  we  seek  for  anything  that 
will  better  harmonise  all  the  facts  and  satisfy  all  the  de- 
mands of  the  problem  ?  Certainly  no  narrower  principle 
will  answer  the  purpose,  and  where  are  we  to  seek  a 
broader  one  ? 

THE  AUTHORITY  AND  POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

The  Church's  authority  and  power  to  do  just  what 
seems  to  her  best  for  the  furtherance  of  her  mission  in 
the  world  is  full  and  absolute.  What  she  does  is  rightly, 
validly,  and  effectually  done ;  the  one  essential  thing 
being  the  exercise  of  her  authority — the  method  of  such 
exercise  being  indifferent.  What  she  does,  Christ  does, 
by  His  Spirit  dwelling  in  and  animating  her. 


62 

This  is  said  of  the  Church  as  a  whole  ;  but  it  may 
also  be  said  of  any  and  every  autonomous  division  of  the 
Church,  with  the  proviso  that  the  act  be  not  contrary  to 
the  faith,  nor  in  opposition  to  the  law  of  the  whole  body. 
The  Church  as  a  whole  cannot  go  astray,  formally,  but 
any  particular  part  of  it  may  do  so  ;  hence  the  necessity 
that  the  part  should  conform  to  the  whole  in  all  matters 
which  have  been  pronounced  upon  by  it  for  all  time.  In 
those  things  upon  which  she  has  not  so  pronounced,  the 
national  or  provincial  Church  governs  itself. 

It  follows  that  if  the  Church  as  a  whole,  in  a  General 
Council,  or  any  autonomous  branch  of  the  Church  in  its 
local  Council,  has  received  into  the  Catholic  ministry, 
without  the  usual  form  of  ordination,  men  who  had  no 
valid  orders  previously,  such  reception  gave  to  them  all 
that  would  have  been  given  had  the  usual  form  been  fol- 
lowed, and  that  their  ministrations  were  thenceforth  done 
by  the  Church's  authority,  and  were  therefore  valid  and 
effectual.     [See  Note  C] 

PARTICULAR    FORMS    NOT    ESSENTIAL. 

That  the  usual  form  is  not  absolutely  essential  should 
not  surprise  us,  nor  would  it  were  we  not  so  much  under 
the  influence  of  Roman  Canonists.  Bingham  relates  how 
Gregory  Thaumaturgus  was  made  a  bishop  without  the 
laying  on  of  hands  ;  and  Cave's  conjecture,  to  which 
Bingham  refers,  is  of  no  force  whatever  [Antiquiiies,  Bk. 
IV.,  Chap.  VI.,  Sect  1 1].  That  among  those  who  have 
assumed  that  some  ceremony  is  essential  to  ordination,  it 
was  long  in  dispute  what  that  ceremony  was,  is  well 
known  [Gore,  Christian  Ministry,  p.  68  n].  Morinus, 
having  investigated  the  matter  historically,  finding  that 
the   imposition  of   hands  was    universally  the   ordinary 


63 

usage,  and,  because  of  his  theory  of  the  indelibility  of 
orders,  missing  the  significance  of  the  facts  emphasised 
in  this  essay,  concluded  that  this  form  was  the  essential 
ceremony  in  ordination.  Treating  orders  as  a  sacrament, 
and  assuming  that  sacraments  have  essential  forms,  he 
naturally  fell  into  this  error.  It  may  be  said,  in  this  con- 
nection, that  even  the  two  sacraments  instituted  by  our 
Lord,  have  no  such  essential  forms  as  to  preclude  the 
reception  of  the  spiritual  reality  without  the  outward 
and  visible  sign.  Otherwise  the  English  and  American 
Churches  are  wrong  in  the  third  rubric  at  the  end  of  the 
office  for  The  Commumon  of  the  Sick.^  So  also  were 
the  Fathers  at  fault  in  counting  baptism  in  the  blood  of 
martyrdom  equivalent  to  that  in  the  usual  form. 

PRINCIPLES    NOT    BOUND    TO    FORMS. 

This  suggests  the  general  question  as  to  how  far 
principles  are  bound  to  and  dependent  upon  prescribed 
or  accustomed  forms.  The  prevailing  idea  among  us 
seems  to  incline  to  consider  them  as  inseparable,  though 
probably  every  one  would  admit  that  there  are  excep- 
tions. It  may  be  profitable  to  briefly  consider  the  ques- 
tion, here,  in  connection  with  a  subject  upon  which  it  has 
an  obvious  bearing. 

It  may  be  said,  then,  that  the  simple  fact  that  a  given 
principle  is  customarily  manifested  through  an  appropri- 

*  But  if  a  man,  either  by  reason  of  extremity  of  sickness,  or  for  want  of  warning 
in  due  time  to  the  Minister,  or  for  lack  of  company  to  receive  with  him,  or  by  any 
other  just  impediment,  do  not  receive  the  Sacrament  of  Christ's  Body  and  Blood,  the 
Minister  shall  instruct  him,  that  if  he  do  truly  repent  him  of  his  sins,  and  steadfastly 
believe  that  Jesus  Christ  hath  suffered  death  upon  the  cross  for  him,  and  shed  His 
blood  for  his  redemption,  earnestly  rememljenng  the  benefits  he  hath  thereby,  and 
giving  Him  hearty  thanks  therefor,  he  doth  eat  and  drink  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our 
Saviour  Christ  profitably  to  his  Soul's  health,  although  he  do  not  receive  the  Sacra- 
ment with  his  mouth. 


64 

ate  form,  is  no  proof  that  this  form  is  essential  to  the 
manifestation  or  application  of  the  principle. 

For  instance,  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  may  be 
termed  the  principle  manifested  and  applied  in  the  Or- 
dinance of  Confirmation.  There  is  no  question  but  that 
every  recorded  occasion  of  the  bestowal  of  this  gift  by 
the  Apostles  was  through  the  laying  on  of  their  hands. 
Yet,  if  we  examine  the  history  of  their  Acts,  closely,  we 
find  instances  in  which  this  gift  was  certainly  bestowed, 
in  which  the  laying  on  of  hands  seems  impossible — e.  g., 
the  three  thousand  converts  at  Pentecost.  It  will  be 
readily  admitted  that  all  the  testimony  of  the  first  two 
centuries  indicates  that  it  was  through  the  imposition  of 
the  hands  of  the  bishops  that  this  gift  was  bestowed. 
Yet  the  Eastern  Churches,  for  centuries  past,  have  not 
used  this  form  for  this  purpose,  nor,  according  to  com- 
mon report,  do  all  the  bishops  of  the  Roman  Communion 
use  it,  now.  Have  they  therefore  no  Confirmation  among 
them  ?  Have  they  ceased  to  bestow  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  upon  their  people  ?  Who  will  be  bold  enough  to 
assert  this  ? 

So  it  may  be  said  that  the  principle  manifested  and 
applied  through  the  usual  form  of  ordination  is  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  enable  the  ordained  to  validly 
and  effectually  perform  certain  ministerial  functions — 
the  gift  of  authority  and  power.  Is  the  gift  bound  to 
and  inseparable  from  this  ordinary  ceremony  ?  It  is  as- 
sumed by  many  that  this  is  the  case.  The  assumption  is 
not  by  any  means  a  necessary  one,  however,  nor  is  there 
any  such  prescription  of  the  use  of  the  form  as  to  justify 
such  an  assumption.  The  original  Apostles  were  not  thus 
set  apart  to  their  ministry  ;  neither  were  Matthias  and 
Saul  of  Tarsus,  who  were  made  apostles  later.      And  we 


65 

have  seen  that  men  have  been  many  times  admitted  to 
the  Church's  ministry  without  her  accustomed  form. 

If  it  be  argued  that  because  these  last  had  received  the 
forTU  of  ordination  before,  in  heresy  or  schism,  therefore 
they  were  received  in  this  manner,  what  will  be  said  con- 
cerning the  Paulianist  clergy,  and  others,  who,  although 
they  had  received  the  form,  even  from  bishops,  were  re- 
quired to  be  ordained  ?  If  their  heresy  be  supposed  to 
be  the  cause  for  this,  then  what  will  be  said  of  other 
heretics  who  were  not  reordained — e.g.,  Arians  and  Mace- 
donians— ,  or  of  Ischyras,  who  received  the  form  from 
the  presbyter  CoUuthus  [Hefele,  History  of  Councils, 
Synod  of  Tyre,  A.D.  335],  and  whose  orders  were  not 
therefore  recognised  because  of  the  accustomed  form 
having  been  used.  Many  cases  of  the  reordination  of 
those  who  had  previously  received  the  usual  form  prove 
the  unsoundness  of  this  theory  ;  and  those  who  would 
be  most  likely  to  make  this  objection  would  be  the  first 
to  repudiate  and  deny  the  efficacy  of  the  form  in  non- 
episcopal  bodies. 

INCONSISTENCIES. 

A  great  weakness  in  some  notable  authors  is  found 
in  the  inconsistency  of  their  remarks  concerning  the 
sacraments  in  general  with  those  made  on  the  sacrament 
of  baptism  in  particular.  Speaking  of  the  former,  they 
use  the  language  of  common  sense,  and  insist  upon 
authority  in  the  administrator,  as  well  as  the  usual  form 
and  matter  ;  but  when  they  come  to  baptism  they  ignore 
their  own  reasonings,  and  incontinently  give  up  the 
authority  as  unnecessary,  making  the  form  sufficient. 
Then  they  go  on  again  to  deny  t\i2X  form  is  of  any  value 
in  the  case  of  orders,  and  insist  that  it  must  be  reiterated 


66 

whenever  men  with  non-episcopal  orders  come  to  the 
Church.  If  the  form  be  of  such  potency  in  the  one 
case,  why  is  it  of  no  value  in  the  other  ? 

The  answer  to  this  question  would  probably  be  that 
the  bishop  is  essential  to  the  completeness  of  the  form 
in  ordination,  but  the  ordained  minister  is  not  so  essen- 
tial in  baptism. 

There  is  a  fallacy  here.  The  bishop  is  essential  to 
ordination  ;  and  so  he  is  to  baptism,  if  Ignatius  and  all 
the  early  writers  previous  to  Tertullian  are  to  be  trusted 
— and  even  he  may  be  interpreted  in  the  same  sense. 
But  we  have  seen  that  the  early  Churches  did  not  con- 
sider the  manual  act  oi  the  bishop  essential  to  ordination, 
though  the  authority  of  the  bishop  was  recognised  and 
respected.  To  say  that  the  bishop  is  necessary  is  only 
another  way  of  saying  that  the  authority  of  the  Church 
is  necessary.  He  is  necessary  because  he  is  the  govern- 
ing member  of  the  body — the  member  through  which  the 
Spirit  who  animates  the  body,  speaks.  That  Spirit  is 
necessary  to  any  and  all  action,  to  baptism  as  well  as  to 
ordination.  Even  the  most  radical  advocates  of  the 
validity  of  lay  baptism,  so-called,  have  based  their 
advocacy  on  the  ground  that  the  sacrament  always, 
everywhere,  and  by  whomsoever  administered  is  the 
Church s  sacrament,  not  the  sacrament  of  heretics.  Why 
not  be  entirely  consistent  and  say  the  same  of  ordi- 
nation ? 

THE    ONLY    SATISFACTORY    CONCLUSION. 

The  fact  is  that  no  rest  is  to  be  had  for  the  mind  in 
any  principle  short  of  the  broad  one,  above  suggested  as 
the  true  one.  This  relieves  us  of  all  difficulties,  and 
gives  us  firm  standing  ground.  We  turn  to  it  therefore, 
and  settle  down  upon  it,  and  rest  from  the  strife  of 
tongues. 


THE    PRESENT    APPLICATION    OF    THE 
PRINCIPLE. 

IF  we  have  found  the  principle  for  which  we  were  seek- 
ing, the  question  immediately  arises  :  Why  cannot 
the  American  Church  apply  this  principle  to  the  solution 
of  the  problem  confronting  her  in  this  nation  ?  If  she 
has  hitherto  acted  on  a  narrower  one,  which  is  inadequate 
to  the  needs  of  the  time,  and  has  been  demonstrated  to 
be  unhistorical,  why  can  she  not  now  abandon  it  for  the 
broad,  and  true,  and  all-sufificient  one  ?  If  she  believes 
Christian  Unity  to  be  so  valuable  and  desirable  a  thing, 
why  can  she  not  now  interpret  the  fourth  term  in  the 
declaration  of  her  bishops  so  as  to  receive  ministers  of 
the  various  Protestant  bodies — they  proving  themselves 
to  be  good  and  fit  men,  and  accepting  her  system  of  doc- 
trine, discipline,  and  worship — without  reordination  ? 

ROMAN    ORDERS    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES. 

She  does  accept  Roman  clerics  in  this  way,  though, 
judged,  from  her  point  of  view,  by  the  canon  law  which 
Rome  itself  accepts,  their  orders  are  null  and  void.  It 
needs  but  a  slight  examination  of  the  canonical  status  of 
the  Roman  mission  in  this  country  to  verify  this  state- 
ment, startling  as  it  may  appear  to  be.  We  have  seen 
that  the  plea  upon  which  these  clerics  are  so  received  by 
us — that  they  have  had  "  episcopal  ordination  " — has  no 
precedent  in  the  Church  of  the  General  Councils.  The 
early  Church  attached  no  importance  whatever  to  this 
plea  in  the  cases  considered  in  this  essay  ;  in  fact  no  such 
plea  was  made  or  even  mentioned  in   these  cases.     The 

67 


68 

plea  is  canonically  insufficient,  and  the  sooner  it  is 
abandoned  the  better.  In  actual  fact,  these  orders  are 
no  more  episcopal  orders  than  were  those  of  the  Nova- 
tians,  the  Donatists,  or  the  followers  of  Maximus  the 
Cynic. 

THE    ORIGIN    OF    ROMAN    ORDERS    IN    THIS    COUNTRY. 

The  Roman  hierarchy  in  this  country  originated  with 
a  bishop  who  had  but  one  consecrator,  and  he  an  intruder 
into  the  jurisdiction  of  the  English  Church.  An  account 
of  the  pretended  consecration  of  this  man  was  reprinted, 
by  photo-lithographic  process,  from  a  contemporaneous 
Romish  pamphlet,  by  the  Historical  Club,  of  New  York 
city,  in  1876.  This  pamphlet  contains,  among  other 
things,  A  Short  Account  of  the  Establishment  of  the  New 
See  of  Baltimore,  in  which,  after  a  statement  leading  up 
to  the  appointment,  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  of  the  Rev. 
Dr.  John  Carroll,  as  bishop,  we  are  told  of  the  consecra- 
tion as  follows : 

Upon  the  receipt  of  his  Bulls  from  Rome,  he  immediately 
repaired  to  England,  where  his  person  and  merit  were  well 
known,  and  presented  himself  to  the  Right  Rev.  Dr.  Charles 
Walmesly,  Bishop  of  Rama,  Senior  Vicar  Apostolic  of  the 
catholic  religion  in  this  Kingdom.  By  invitation  of  Thomas 
Weld,  Esq.,  the  consecration  of  the  new  Bishop  was  performed 
during  a  solemn  high  Mass  in  the  elegant  chapel  of  Lullworth 
Castle,  on  Sunday,  the  15th  day  of  August,  1790,  being  the  feast 
of  the  Assumption  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary,  and  the  munifi- 
cence of  that  gentleman  omitted  no  circumstances  which  could 
possibly  add  dignity  to  so  venerable  a  ceremony.  The  two 
Prelates  were  attended  by  their  respective  assistant  priests,  etc. 
[An  Acco7mt  of  the  Consecration,  by  one  Bishop,  a  Bishop  "  in 
Partibus,''  of  the  First  Romish  Bishop  in  the  United  States,  p.  3.] 

It  is  plain  enough  from  this  statement  of  the  Roman- 
ists themselves  that  this  consecration  was  performed  by 


69 

only  one  bishop,  and  in  the  jurisdiction  of  the  English 
Metropolitan  and  bishops.  That  it  was  done  without 
their  consent  needs  no  proof. 

THIS    ORDINATION    VOID. 

This  ordination  or  consecration  was  null  and  void, 
according  to  the  Canon  law. 

It  was  so,  first,  because  it  was  done  by  only  one 
bishop,  without  any  sufficient  necessity  for  such  a  de- 
parture from  the  canonical  requirement.  [Apostolical 
Canon  I.,  Nicsea  IV.     See  Note  D.] 

It  was  so,  secondly,  because  it  was  done  by  an  in- 
truder into  the  jurisdiction  of  another.  [Apostolical 
Canon  XXXV.,  Antioch  XIII.,  XXII.,  Constantinople 
II.,  Ephesus  VIII.*] 

*  As  the  Ephesine  canon  has  not  been  heretofore  transcribed,  it  is  here  given. 
The  other  canons  referred  to  will  be  found  on  page  &^  3 ) 

Our  brother,  Bishop  Rheginus,  the  beloved  of  God,  and  the  beloved  of  God  the 
Bishops  with  him,  Zeno  and  Evagrius,  of  the  Province  of  Cyprus,  have  reported  to  us 
an  innovation  which  has  been  introduced  contrary  to  the  constitutions  of  the  Church 
and  the  Canons  of  the  Holy  Apostles,  and  which  touches  the  liberties  of  all.  Where- 
fore, since  injuries  affecting  all  require  the  more  attention,  as  they  cause  the  greater 
damage,  and  particularly  when  Ihcy  are  transgressions  of  an  ancient  custom  ;  and 
since  those  excellent  men,  who  have  petitioned  the  Synod,  have  told  us  in  writing 
and  by  word  of  mouth  that  the  Bishop  of  Antioch  has  in  this  way  held  ordinations  in 
Cyprus  ;  therefore  [we  declare  that]  the  Rulers  of  the  Church  in  Cyprus  shall  enjoy 
without  dispute  or  injury,  according  to  ancient  custom  and  the  Canons  of  the  blessed 
Fathers,  the  right  of  performing  for  themselves  the  ordination  of  their  excellent 
Bishops.  The  same  rule  shall  be  observed  in  the  other  Dioceses  and  Provinces 
everywhere,  so  that  none  of  the  most  religious  Bishops  sliall  assume  control  of  any 
Province  which  has  not  heretofore,  from  the  very  beginning,  been  under  his  own 
hand  or  that  of  his  predecessors.  But  if  any  one  has  violently  taken  and  subjected 
[a  Province],  he  shall  give  it  up  ;  so  that  the  Canons  of  the  Fathers  may  not  be 
transgressed  ;  nor  the  vanities  of  worldly  honour  be  brought  in  under  pretext  of  Sacred 
Office  ;  nor  we  lose,  little  by  little,  and  at  length  forget,  the  liberty  which  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Deliverer  of  all  men,  hath  given  us  by  His  own  Blood.  Wherefore, 
this  Holy  and  CEcumenical  Synod  has  decreed  that  in  every  Province  the  rights 
which  heretofore,  from  the  beginning,  have  belonged  to  it,  shall  be  preserved  to  it, 
according  to  the  old  prevailing  custom,  unchanged  and  uninjured  :  every  Metropoli- 
tan having  permission  to  take,  for  his  own  security,  a  copy  of  these  acts.  And  if  any 
one  shall  bring  forward  a  rule  contrary  to  what  is  here  determined,  this  Holy  and 
CEcumenical  Synod  unanimously  decrees  that  it  shall  be  of  no  effect. 


70 

It  was  so,  thirdly,  because  it  was  done  without  the 
consent  of  the  English  Metropolitan  and  his  co-bishops. 
[Nic^ea  IV.,  VI.,  Antioch  XIII.,  XIX.,  XXII.] 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  all  these  canons  were  re-affirmed 
at  Chalcedon,  by  the  fourth  General  Council,  and  that 
the  re-affirming  canon  is  now  to  be  found  in  the  Canon 
law — the  Cor  pits  juris  canonici — in  c.  14,  C.  xxv.,  q.  i  ; 
and  the  special  re-enactment,  in  Canon  5,  concerning  in- 
trusion is  found  as  c.  26,  C.  xii.,  q.  i  [Hefele,  History  of 
Councils,  Chalcedon,  Canons  i  and  5]. 

THE    CONSEQUENCE     IN    THIS    COUNTRY. 

Every  act  of  the  one  so  ordained  was  null  and  void, 
because  of  these  facts  ;  and  would  have  been  so,  under 
the  same  canons,  even  had  his  ordination  been  performed 
canonically,  because  of  his  intrusion  into  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  American  bishops,  and  the  want  of  their  consent. 

And  for  the  same  reasons  every  official  act  of  every 
Roman  cleric  in  these  United  States,  from  that  day  to 
this,  has  been  equally  null  and  void,  if  the  Canons  of  the 
Church  Catholic  have  not  lost  their  force. 

CARDINAL  Wiseman's  testimony. 

So  unexceptionable  an  authority,  on  the  Roman  side, 
as  Cardinal  Wiseman,  testifies  to  the  correctness  of  this 
position.  Bailey  {Jtirisdiction  and  Mission  of  the  A71- 
glican  Episcopate,  p.  67]  quotes  the  Cardinal  as  follows : 

What  will  vitiate  the  episcopacy  of  a  See,  a  province  or  King- 
dom, so  as  to  cut  it  off  from  all  participation  in  the  rights  of 
apostolical  succession  and  jurisdiction  ?  We  have  seen  the  case 
of  the  Novatians,  treated  in  Canon  VIII.  of  Nicaea,  and  the  de- 
cree regarding-  them  is  extremely  valuable,  as  embodying  prin- 
ciples acted  upon  most  rigidly  in  the  ancient  Church.  From  it 
we  are  necessarily  led  to  the  conclusion,  that  any  appointment 


71 

made  to  a  bishopric,  even  by  valid  consecration,  which  is  at 
variance  with  the  Canons  actually  in  force  in  the  Church,  is 
unlawful,  and  leaves  the  Bishop  so  appointed  void  of  all  jurisdic- 
tion and  power  ;  so  that  he  is  a  usurper  if  he  take  possession  of 
a  See. 

In  these  and  other  instances,  as  Bolegni  remarks,  there  is  no 
question  of  removing  or  deposing  ;  but  such  Bishops  were  not 
supposed  to  have  ever  possessed  any  jurisdiction  from  the  begin- 
ning *  *  *  that  such  nullity  of  episcopal  nomination  was 
the  necessary  consequence  of  the  violation  of  the  canons  in  force. 

The  Cardinal  is  here  arguing  against  the  position  of 
the  English  bishops,  on  the  assumption  that  as  they  had 
not  received  jurisdiction  from  the  bishop  of  Rome,  they 
had  none.  He  is  also  assuming  the  soundness  of  the 
theory  refuted  in  this  essay — on  the  indelibility  of  Orders 
— ,  and  making  the  defect  to  consist  in  want  of  jurisdic- 
tion. Putting  aside  these  assumptions  as  entirely  un- 
warranted and  false,  his  argument  returns  with  crushing 
force  upon  his  own  head,  and  may  properly  be  used 
against  Roman  orders  both  in  England  and  in  this  coun- 
try. It  fits  the  case  in  hand,  admirably,  and  shows  that 
under  the  Canons,  Roman  clerics  in  these  United  States 
have  no  orders  at  all.* 

ROMAN    CONVERTS    TO    THE    AMERICAN    CHURCH. 

What  then  is  to  be  said  of  the  orders  and  the  acts  of 
such  of  our  clergy  as  have  been  received  from  the  Roman 
Mission,  without  reordination  ? 

Simply  this :  Their  reception  by  the  American 
Church  has  availed  just  as  the  reception   of  the  Nova- 

*  An  equitable  plea  might  perhaps  be  made  in  abatement  of  this  strict  construc- 
tion of  the  canon  law,  but  here  this  strict  construction  must  be  emphasised.  Roman 
clerics  in  this  country  who  have  received  their  orders  canonically,  in  all  respects,  in 
other  countries,  from  Bishops  who  were  not  intruders,  have  valid  orders,  of  course,  so 
far  as  the  present  argument  is  concerned;  but  their  acts  in  this  country,  being  intru- 
sive, are  void. 


T2 

tians,  Donatists,  and  others  availed  ;  and  has  given  them 
authority  and  power  for  the  valid  performance  of  the 
functions  of  their  new  ministry,  just  as  the  customary 
form  of  ordination  would  have  done. 

THE    CHURCH    AND    PROTESTANT     MINISTERS. 

A  similar  reception  of  ministers  not  having  what  our 
local  canons  recognise  as  "  episcopal  ordination,''  would  do 
as  much  for  them. 

It  is  alleged  that  the  English  and  Scotch  Churches 
have  admitted  to  their  ministry,  without  reordination, 
men  not  having  previously  had  episcopal  ordination. 
The  allegation,  notwithstanding  the  strenuous  efforts 
made  to  discredit  it,  seems  to  have  a  solid  foundation  of 
fact  ;  its  apparent  refutation  having  derived  its  strength 
from  the  incautious  application  of  the  statement  to  cases 
in  which  it  was  not  applicable.  The  statement  being 
true,  these  Churches  did  no  more  than  was  done  by  other 
Churches  in  ages  past  ;  for  invalid  ordination,  even  by  a 
real  bishop,  cannot  be  properly  called  "episcopal  ordi- 
nation." 

The  question  is  not,  let  it  be  remembered,  one  of 
distinction  between  episcopal  and  non-episcopal  ordina- 
tion, for  under  the  canon  law  of  the  early  Church,  which 
is  of  force  to-day,  the  former  is  as  invalid  and  void  as  the 
latter,  when  given  in  disobedience  to  this  law  and  in 
opposition  to  the  rightful  authority  of  the  Church. 

There  need,  therefore,  be  no  dispute  or  disturbance 
about  the  action  of  these  Churches  in  this  connection. 
As  autocephalous  and  autonomous  Churches  they  had 
the  right  to  exercise  their  discretion  in  the  matter,  and 
what  they  did  was  well  and  validly  done.  Should  they, 
to-day,  receive  into  their   ministry,  without  reordination, 


73 

all  the  Presbyterian  ministers  in  their  respective  juris- 
dictions, there  would  be  no  canonical  or  proper  ground  of 
complaint  against  them,  nor  would  there  be  any  reason 
to  doubt  the  validity  of  the  orders  or  the  consequent  acts 
of  the  men  so  received. 

PROTESTANT    CHURCHES. 

So,  should  any  entire  body  of  Protestants  desire  to 
accept,  en  masse,  the  terms  of  the  American  Bishops,  the 
same  principle  might  properly  be  applied,  and  the  historic 
episcopate  be  given  to  them,  without  immediate  organic 
unity,  under  such  conditions  as  would  promise  security 
for  the  future.  What  those  conditions  should  be  must 
necessarily  be  a  matter  for  most  serious  consideration. 
There  are  some  very  important  questions  upon  which  a 
preliminary  understanding  and  agreement  should  be  made. 
The  other  terms  in  the  declaration  of  the  Bishops  would 
need  to  be  explained,  and  understood  in  some  definite 
sense  not  open  to  misconstruction  and  dispute. 

ORGANIC    UNITY     THE    GOAL. 

The  mere  fact  of  the  same  field  being  occupied  by 
a  plurality  of  bishops,  and  by  different  organisations, 
under  separate  governments,  is  sufficiently  startling.  It 
would  be  an  anomalous  condition  of  things,  unprece- 
dented, except  upon  a  small  scale,  in  the  history  of  Chris- 
tendom, and  should  be  regarded  as  only  a  temporary 
arrangement,  to  endure  no  longer  than  might  be  neces- 
sary to  bring  about  perfect  organic  unity.  A  rigid 
uniformity  is  neither  desired  nor  desirable,  but  there 
should  be,  at  least  in  matter  of  doctrine,  no  greater 
diversity  than  already  exists  in  our  own  Church. 

If  all  the  orthodox  religious  bodies  in  the  land  should 
receive  the  historic  episcopate  and  then  continue,  indefi- 


74 

nitely,  to  act  independently,  as  they  are  now  doing,  what 
would  be  the  probable  result  ?  The  idea  that  we  can 
afford  to  give  the  episcopate  on  any  such  conditions  or 
with  any  such  prospect  seems  wildly  Utopian — though  it 
would  be  anything  but  a  Utopia  that  would  result  from 
such  a  course.  We  should  soon  have  Churches  against 
Churches,  Councils  against  Councils,  bishops  against 
bishops,  and  anathemas  against  anathemas,  as  plentifully 
as  in  the  Arian  period  ;  for  the  coming  closer  together 
only  in  the  matter  of  episcopacy  would  inevitably  tend  to 
drive  us  farther  apart  in  other  things.  Family  quarrels 
are  proverbially  the  most  bitter  of  all  quarrels,  and  there 
would  not  be  wanting  narrow,  bigoted,  bitter  men,  of  a 
spirit  alien  to  that  of  the  Church,  who  would  stir  up  strife 
all  the  more  successfully,  because  of  the  new  vantage 
ground  obtained  through  the  possession  of  episcopal 
orders.  Such  a  unity  would  be  disastrous  rather  than 
beneficial,  and  would  make  things  worse  rather  than 
better. 

It  would  be  necessary,  therefore,  to  provide  to  the 
utmost  possible  limit  against  such  contingencies,  before 
the  episcopate  should  be  given.  The  best  plan  would 
probably  be  to  first  remove  the  obstacles  in  the  way  of 
giving  the  episcopate  when  the  proper  time  should  ar- 
rive ;  and  then  to  take  up,  one  by  one,  such  other 
obstacles  to  a  real  and  hearty  unity  as  might  be  seen  to 
exist,  until  the  way  should  seem  clear  to  an  ultimate  and 
not  very  far  distant  arrival  at  the  organic  union  of  the 
various  bodies  into  one  great  national  Church. 

ROME    AND    GENEVA    ON    THE    SAME    FOOTING. 

In  the  meantime,  for  the  benefit  of  individual  min- 
isters who  should  desire  to  connect  themselves  with  us, 


75 

steps  should  be  taken  to  provide  for  their  reception  on 
the  same  or  similar  terms  as  those  upon  which  Roman 
Clerics  are  now  received,  the  bishops  being  allowed  large 
discretion  as  to  time  and  other  minor  requirements. 

AN    UNNECESSARY     QUESTION. 

Finally,  it  may  be  said  that  there  is  no  need  whatever 
that  the  Church  should,  now  more  than  of  old,  raise  the 
question  of  the  validity  of  the  orders  of  those  whom 
she  should  receive  or  bestow  the  historic  episcopate  upon. 
It  is  well  known  that  this  is  a  question  upon  which  there 
are  different  opinions,  even  among  ourselves,  and  that 
the  language  of  the  Church  is  variously  interpreted. 

Leaving  then,  this  question,  as  of  no  importance  in 
this  connection,  and  each  holding  his  own  opinion  as 
seems  to  him  good,  we  can  go  on  to  apply  the  principle 
which  has  been  affirmed  in  these  pages,  and  so  facilitate 
and  forward  the  great  work  of  Christian  unity,  which,  in 
the  magnitude  of  its  importance  dwarfs  every  other 
question  not  pertaining  to  the  essentials  of  the  faith 
itself. 

AUTHORITY    AND    POWER    OF    THE     AMERICAN    CHURCH. 

The  historic  Church  in  and  of  this  nation  has  author- 
ity and  power  herein.  All  that  is  necessary  is  that  she 
should  use  it  wisely,  to  the  most  effective  furtherance  of 
her  GoD-given  mission.  Under  ordinary  conditions, 
ordinary  methods  are  sufficient ;  but  in  emergencies  it  is 
proper  and  sometimes  necessary  to  depart  from  the 
accustomed  ways,  only  so  it  be  done  by  competent 
authority.  We  have  seen  the  Churches  of  the  early  ages 
doing  this,  and  so  dealing  with  abnormal  conditions  in 
ways  seeming  best  calculated  to  remove  those  conditions. 


T6 

The  American  Church  is  privileged,  if  not  in  duty  bound, 
to  follow  their  example.  An  emergency  certainly  and 
confessedly  exists,  now  and  here.  We  are  confronted 
with  conditions  more  deplorable,  and  on  some  accounts 
more  critical,  than  any  that  have  heretofore  occurred  in 
the  Church's  history.  In  view  of  these  conditions  it  is 
more  than  ever  necessary  that  everything  possible  should 
be  done  to  heal  divisions  among  believers  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  to  bring  them  into  that  unity  for 
which  He  so  earnestly  prayed.  If  we  cannot  now  find 
ground  of  hope  for  the  bringing  of  Romanists  into  this 
unity,  at  least  we  may  strive  to  bring  all  others,  and  this 
may  lead  to  the  final  reconciliation  of  even  the  most 
hopeless.  It  is  needful  that  bickerings  and  quarrelings 
should  cease  ;  that  the  tremendous  waste  of  power  and 
means,  incident  to  our  divisions,  should  be  stopped  ;  that 
we  should  distribute  our  forces  more  evenly  over  the 
field  committed  to  us  ;  that  our  Missions  in  foreign  lands 
as  well  as  our  work  in  the  home  field  should  witness  for 
unity,  not,  as  now,  for  division  ;  that,  in  short,  all,  who 
possibly  can,  should  stand  together  for  the  faith  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  advancement  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

THE    RESrONSIBILITY    OF    THE  AMERICAN    CHURCH. 

Authority  and  power  beget  responsibility  ;  therefore 
the  historic  Church  of  the  nation  is  responsible  for  doing 
her  uttermost  to  secure  this  much  to  be  desired  end. 
Hers  it  is  to  witness  for  unity,  to  invite  to  it,  to  make  all 
possible  sacrifices  for  it,  to  yield  all  except  fundamental 
principles  to  secure  it.  She  has  made  a  good  beginning 
in  the  declaration  of  her  Bishops.  Will  she  rise  to  the 
full  level  of  her  opportunity,  and  boldly  meet  the  de- 
mands of  the  time  and  the  occasion  ? 


VI. 

SUMMARY. 

fT  may  be    well,  in   conclusion,  to  state,  concisely,  the 
principal   results  at  which  we  have  arrived  ;  so  that 
we  may  have  them  all  before  us. 
We  have  seen  : 

I.  That  the  prevailing  theory  of  the  indelibility  of 
Orders  is  not  primitive,  not  Catholic,  but  Augustinian 
and  Roman  ;  that  it  is  not  accepted  by  the  Eastern 
Church,  and  has  prevailed  even  in  the  Western  Churches 
but  six  hundred  years. 

II.  That  the  distinction  now  made  between  invalid 
acts  and  acts  uiicaiionical  but  valid,  was  unknown  to  the 
early  Church  ;  which  understood  a  deposed  bishop  to  be 
deprived  of  power  as  well  as  authority  to  perform  the 
functions  of  his  former  ministry,  and  an  act  done  in 
violation  of  the  law  of  the  Church  and  in  opposition  to 
her  authority,  to  be  null  and  void. 

III.  That  the  maxim:  Fieri non  debet,  sed factum  valet, 
has  no  proper  application  in  connection  with  the  func- 
tions of  the  Christian  ministry,  but  is  simply  a  begging 
of  the  question  and  an  assumption  of  the  very  thing  to 
be  proved. 

IV.  That  there  is  no  such  thing  possible  as  the  valid- 
ation of  an  originally  invalid  function,  or  the  bestowal 
on  it  of  a  retrospective  validity. 

V.  That  the  mere  fact  of  orders  being  derived  from 
bishops  was  not  recognised  as  giving  such  orders  validity, 
and  that  therefore  the  theory  upon  which  we  receive  into 
our  ministry,  without  reordination,  men  having  what  we 

77 


78 

term   "  episcopal    ordination,"    is    inconsistent   with    the 
practise  of  the  early  Church. 

VI.  That  the  Councils  did  not  raise  the  question  of 
the  validity  of  the  orders  of  separatists  whom  they  were 
seeking  to  bring  back  to  the  Church,  but  exercised 
their  own  discretion  as  to  the  terms  and  the  mode  of  the 
reception  of  such  men. 

VII.  That  men  having,  under  the  Church's  law,  no 
orders  at  all,  were,  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  unity,  re- 
ceived into  the  Catholic  ministry  without  the  usual  form 
of  ordination,  and,  indeed,  without  any  form  at  all. 

VIII.  That  the  prevailing  theories  are  utterly  inca- 
pable of  accounting  for  all  the  facts  in  the  history  of  the 
Church's  treatment  of  separatists,  and  that  the  only  prin- 
ciple broad  enough  to  do  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact 
of  the  Church's  plenary  authority  and  power  to  do 
whatever  seems  to  her  wise  and  expedient,  in  all  such 
matters. 

IX.  That  this  authority  and  power  are  possessed  by 
every  autonomous  Church,  and  therefore  by  the  American 
Church. 

X.  That  it  is  certainly  the  privilege,  and  apparently 
the  duty  of  the  American  Church,  to  apply  this  principle 
to  the  bringing  about  of  unity  among  American  Chris- 
tians ;  and  that  she  may  as  well  receive  Protestant  as 
Roman  ministers,  without  reordination,  for  the  facilita- 
tion of  this  end. 


79 


NOTE    A. 

{See  page  41.) 

The  Novatians  and  the  Donatists  equally  rebaptised  their 
converts  from  the  Catholic  Church.  We  learn  this  of  the  for- 
mer, quite  incidentally",  through  the  controversy  of  the  third 
century  on  heretical  baptism.  Nothing  is  said  about  it  in  the 
Nicene  Council,  nor  does  anything  seem  to  have  been  made  of 
it.  Indeed,  such  rebaptisation  was  the  natural  outcome  of  the 
Novatian  position. 

But  the  Donatist  position  was  essentially  the  same,  and  their 
rebaptisation  was  equally  natural.  Yet,  this,  which  was  ignored 
in  the  case  of  the  Novatians,  is  made  by  Augustine  the  burden 
of  his  complaint  against  the  Donatists.  Why  this  difference  } 
The  practise  could  have  been  no  worse  in  the  one  case  than  in 
the  other,  and  why  Augustine  should  have  chosen  this  ground 
of  attack  we  cannot  tell.  He  did  choose  it,  however,  and  in  the 
exigencies  of  controversy  he  excogitated  his  peculiar  theory  of 
the  indelibility  of  Orders,  with  which  to  justify  his  views  of  the 
validity  of  heretical  baptism. 


80 


NOTE    B. 

{See  page  46.) 

It  may  be  advisable  to  bring  out  still  more  forcibly  these 
alternatives,  and  some  of  their  results. 

Rome  and  Carthage  agree  in  repudiating  the  ordination  of 
Novatian,  and  declare  it  to  be  null  and  void.  [Cyprian,  Epistles 
XLV.,  1,  LI.,  8,  24  ;  Eusebius,  Eccles.  Hist.  VII.,  43.] 

I. 

If  the  Nicene  Council  required  the  Novatian  clerics  to  be  re- 
ordained,  it  simply  sustained  the  decisions  of  Rome  and  Car- 
thage, and  strictly  enforced  the  Canons.  In  which  case  the  or- 
dination was  recognised  by  all  as  null  and  void. 

II. 

If  the  Nicene  Council  did  not  require  the  Novatian  clerics  to 
be  reordained,  it  was  not  because  it  recognised  the  validity  of 
Novatian's  ordination,  contravening  the  decisions  of  Rome  and 
Carthage  and  the  canon  law,  as  has  been  assumed  ;  for  the  or- 
dination of  Maximus  the  Cynic  was  precisely  parallel  to  that  of 
Novatian,  and  the  second  General  Council  distinctly  declared 
that  Maximus  was  not  made  a  bishop  by  that  ordination,  but 
that  all  that  had  been  done  about  him  was  void. 

Therefore — unless  we  are  prepared  to  admit  that  these  two 
General  Councils  acted  on  flatly  contradictory  principles — the 
Nicene  Council  admitted  to  the  Catholic  ministry,  without  or- 
dination, men  who  had  no  orders  at  all,  previously. 

In  neither  case  was  there  any  recognition  of  Novatian  orders; 
which  effectually  disposes  of  the  claim  that  such  an  ordination 
as  that  of  Novatian  was  simply  irregular  but  valid,  as  well  as  of 
the  sophism  :  Fieri  non  debet,  sed factum  valet. 


81 

NOTE    C. 

{See  page  62.) 

It  is  obvious  that  the  principle  here  applied  to  Orders  is 
equally  applicable  to  baptism.  In  fact,  it  was  by  studying  the 
question  of  what  is  popularly  but  most  inaccurately  termed  lay 
baptism,  that  the  writer  was  led  to  the  application  of  this  prin- 
ciple to  Orders. 

Persons  received  the  form  of  baptism  from  those  not  author- 
ised by  the  Church  to  administer  it ;  sometimes  within  and 
oftener  without  the  Church.  What  was  to  be  done  about  it  ? 
Some  said  one  thing,  some  another.  Some  admitted  such  per- 
sons to  the  eucharist  by  the  imposition  of  hands.  Others  bap- 
tised them  just  as  though  they  had  never  received  the  form, 
counting  it  as  an  absolute  nullity.  In  either  case,  these  persons, 
when  received,  by  whatever  mode,  became  partakers  of  all  the 
privileges  belonging  to  the  unity  and  communion  of  the  Church. 
True,  Stephen  of  Rome,  and  some  of  his  adherents,*  claimed 
that  the  spiritual  benefits  accompanied  and  followed  the  admin- 
istration everywhere  and  by  whomsoever  administered;  but  this 
was  repugnant  to  the  common  sense  of  the  Church,  and  did  not 
prevail  to  any  extent. 

Now,  the  form,  so  administered,  was  either  valid — that  is,  of 
force,  as  baptism — or  not.  If  it  was,  then,  by  parity  of  reason- 
ing, any  and  every  other  rite  of  the  Church,  administered  under 
similar  circumstances,  should  be  recognised  as  equally  valid. 
This  was  not  admitted,  and  some  took  the  ground  that  none  of 
the  other  rites  are  so  necessary  to  salvation  but  that  a  man 
might  be  saved  without  them,  whilst  without  baptism  no  one 
could  be  saved — martyrdom  being,  however,  admitted  to  be  a 
substitute  for  the  ordinary  sacrament — ,  therefore  the  difference. 
Another  ground  taken  was  that  the  ministry  is  only  a  matter  of 

*  Among  whom  must  be  counted  the  great  majority  of  the  advocates  of  the  valid- 
ity of  lay  baptism,  so-called,  in  modern  times.  Very  few  of  the^e  recognise  any  such 
distinction  as  is  emphasised  by  Augustine,  between  the  validity  of  the  form  as  form, 
and  the  spiritual  effect  of  the  form. 


82 

order,  and  that  in  the  absence  of  the  clergy  every  layman,  being 
a  priest  in  a  certain  sense,  was  competent  to  administer  baptism 
and  the  eucharist.  Still  another  view  was  that  one  having  once 
received  the  power  to  administer  the  sacraments  could  nev^er 
lose  it,  and  that  therefore  heretics  could  give  them. 

Of  these  three  theories  it  may  be  said  that  the  first  was  based 
on  a  misconception  which  no  one  now  holds  ;  the  second  is 
manifestly  as  good  for  orders  as  for  other  functions,  and  flatly 
contradicts  all  the  testimony  of  the  first  two  centuries  ;  while 
the  third  was  that  of  Augustine,  which  it  is  hoped  has  been  suf- 
ficiently refuted  in  the  foregoing  pages. 

We  are  driven  back,  therefore,  to  the  conclusion  that  one 
function  administered  without  authority  is  just  as  good  and  no 
better  than  any  other  function  administered  under  similar  cir- 
cumstances. How  a  different  conclusion  could  ever  have  been 
so  largely  accepted  can  be  accounted  for  only  by  the  persistent 
tendency,  in  the  West,  to  follow  the  bishop  of  Rome,  constantly 
fostered  and  taken  advantage  of,  as  it  has  been,  by  the  lying 
spirit  which,  for  so  many  centuries,  has  seemed  to  be  embodied 
in  the  papacy. 

If  the  form  was  not  valid,  then,  when  men  were  received 
without  baptism,  either  they  were  not  truly  received  at  all,  or 
they  obtained  at  their  reception  the  benefits  usually  bestowed 
through  baptism.  The  former  hypothesis  did  not  seem  to  be 
tenable,  for  such  persons  were  visibly  in  the  enjoyment  of  all 
the  outward  privileges  of  membership  in  the  Church.  It  re- 
mained, therefore,  only  to  assume  the  truth  of  the  latter  hypoth- 
esis, and  then  to  seek  the  principle  which  would  satisfactorily 
account  for  this  seeming  anomaly.  The  only  one  possible  of 
acceptance  seemed  to  be  that  of  the  Church's  plenary  authority 
and  power  to  do,  validly  and  effectually,  whatever  she  deemed 
wise  and  good. 

For  a  full  discussion  of  the  question  of  baptism,  the  reader  is 
referred  to  a  series  of  Articles  now  in  course  of  publication  in 
Tlie  Church  Review. 


NOTE  D. 

{See  page  69.) 

Reference  should  perhaps  be  made,  in  this  connection,  to  the 
Apostolic  Constitutions,  which,  in  the  main,  date  back  to  the 
fourth  century,  at  the  latest,  and  which  may  be  relied  on,  when 
according  with  the  other  documents  of  that  and  earlier  times,  as 
giving  the  sense  of  the  Church. 

Concerning  the  ordination  of  a  bishop.  Sect.  XX.,  Book  III.,  is 
similar  to  Apostolical  Canon  i.     It  reads  as  follows  : 

That  a  bishop  ought  to  be  ordained  by  three  or  two  bish- 
ops, BUT  NOT  BY  ONE;    FOR  THAT  WOULD  BE  INVALID. 

XX.  We  command  that  a  bishop  be  ordained  by  three  bishops,  or 
at  least  by  two;  but  it  is  not  lawful  that  he  be  set  over  you  by 
one;  for  the  testimony  of  two  or  three  witnesses  is  more  firm  and 
secure.     *     *     * 

Again  in  Book  VIII.,  Sect.  III.,  xxvii.,  we  find  further  and 
fuller  directions  on  the  same  subject. 

Simon    the   Canaanite    concerning    the  number    necessary 

FOR  the  ordination  OF  A  BISHOP. 

XXVII.  And  I  Simon  the  Canaanite  make  a  constitution  to  deter- 
mine by  how  many  a  bishop  ought  to  be  elected.  Let  a  bishop  be  or- 
dained by  three  or  two  bishops;  but  if  any  one  be  ordained  by  one 
bishop,  let  him  be  deprived,  both  himself  and  he  that  ordained  him. 
But  if  there  be  a  necessity  that  he  have  only  one  to  ordain  him,  be- 
cause more  bishops  cannot  come  together,  as  in  time  of  persecution,  or 
for  such  like  causes,  let  him  bring  the  suffrage  or  permission  of  more 
bishops. 

The  likeness  of  this  to  Canon  IV.  of  Nicaea  is  marked,  and  the 
fact  that  the  latter  requires  at  least  three  bishops  to  be  present, 
seems  to  indicate  that  the  Constitution  is  of  older  date. 


APPENDIX  TO  CHRISTIAN  UNITY  AND  THE 
HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 

By  an  oversight  of  the  author,  the  following  Canons, 
referred  to  on  pages  69  and  70,  were  not  quoted  at  the 
proper  place, 

APOSTOLICAL   CANONS. 

I.     Let  a  Bishop  be  ordained  by  two  or  three  Bishops. 

35.  Let  no  Bishop  presume  to  hold  ordinations  beyond  his 
own  boundaries  in  Cities  or  districts  not  within  his  jurisdiction  ; 
and  if  he  should  be  convicted  of  having  done  this  without  the 
consent  of  the  Bishop  having  jurisdiction  in  such  Cities  or  dis- 
tricts, both  he  and  those  whom  he  has  ordained  shall  be  deposed. 

NICENE   CANONS. 

4.  It  is  by  all  means  proper  that  a  Bishop  should  be  ap- 
pointed by  all  the  Bishops  in  the  Province  ;  but  should  this  be 
difficult,  either  on  account  of  urgent  necessity  or  because  of 
distance,  three  at  least  should  meet  together,  and  the  suffrages 
being  taken,  those  of  the  absent  [Bishops]  also  being  communi- 
cated in  writing,  then  the  ordination  should  be  made.  But  in 
every  Province  the  ratification  of  what  is  done  should  be  left  to 
the  Metropolitan. 

6.  Let  the  ancient  customs  prevail  in  Egypt,  Lybia  and 
Pentapolis  ;  so  that  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  have  jurisdiction 
in  all  these  Provinces,  since  the  like  is  customary  for  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  also.  Likewise  in  Antioch  and  the  other  Provinces,  let 
the  Churches  retain  their  privileges.  And  this  is  to  be  univer- 
sally understood,  that,  if  any  one  be  made  Bishop  without  the 
consent  of  the  Metropolitan,  the  great  Synod  has  declared  that 
such  a  man  ought  not  to  be  a  Bishop.  If,  however,  two  or  three 
Bishops  shall  from  natural  love  of  contradiction,  oppose  the 
common  suffrage  of  the  rest,  it  being  favorable,  and  according 


to  the  Canon  of  the  Church,  then  let  the  choice  of  the  majority 
prevail. 

CONSTANTINOPOLITAN  CANON. 

2.  The  Bishops  of  a  Diocese  are  not  to  invade  Churches 
lying  outside  of  their  bounds,  nor  bring  confusion  on  the 
Churches  ;  but  let  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  according  to  the 
Canons,  alone  administer  the  affairs  of  Egypt;  and  let  the  Bishops 
of  the  East  manage  the  East  only,  saving  the  privileges  of  the 
Church  in  Antioch,  which  are  mentioned  in  the  Canons  of 
Nicaea  ;  and  let  the  Bishops  of  the  Asian  Diocese  administer  the 
Asian  affairs  only  ;  and  the  Pontic  Bishops  only  Pontic  matters  ; 
and  the  Thracian  Bishops  only  Thracian  affairs.  And  let  not 
Bishops  go  beyond  their  Diocese  for  ordination  or  any  other  ec- 
clesiastical administration,  unless  they  be  invited.  And  the 
aforesaid  Canon  concerning  Dioceses  being  observed,  it  is  evident 
that  the  Synod  of  every  Province  will  administer  the  affairs  of 
that  particular  Province,  as  was  decreed  at  Nicaea.  But  the 
Churches  of  God  in  heathen  nations  must  be  governed  according 
to  the  custom  which  has  prevailed  among  their  forefathers. 

This  oversight  also  makes  it  necessary  that  the  sec- 
ond line  of  the  note  of  page  69  should  read  as  follows: 
The  Antiochene  Canons  will  be  found  on  page  31. 

It  may  be  noted  here  that  in  the  reference  to  Euse- 
bius  on  page  80,  VII.  should  be  VI. 


